What say you DU? Kerry Says He Deserves 2nd Chance in '08

[CatWoman]

October 15,2006 | WASHINGTON -- Sen. John Kerry says he deserves a second chance if he decides to take another crack at becoming president.

The Massachusetts Democrat, who lost to President Bush in 2004, said it is a basic principle that "Americans give people a second chance. And if you learn something and prove you've learned something, maybe even more so. Now, I don't know what I'm going to do yet. We'll make that decision down the road."

Ronald Reagan twice unsuccessfully sought the GOP nomination for president before he got it -- and won two elections for the White House.

"John McCain, their leading candidate -- didn't he get kicked around South Carolina by the same president because he wasn't patriotic enough as a prisoner of war? He's now their leading candidate for president," Kerry said of the Republican Party. "Richard Nixon seemed to get kicked around pretty badly both running for president and governor, turned around and came back and got elected president."

Kerry faces a major challenge trying to convince Democratic activists that a recently defeated candidate can still carry his party's hopes for recapturing the White House.

http://www.salon.com/wire/ap/archive.html?wire=D8KP83100.html

[helderheid]

1. Gore and Kerry won - I'd vote 'em both back in if on the ticket

[blm]

36. The DNC refusing to secure election process lost it for Gore and Kerry.

What Terry McAuliffe did after 2000, KNOWING how election fraud hurt Gore, was UNCONSCIONABLE - he let election fraud WORSEN in 2002 and 2004.

[helderheid]

51. couldn't agree more!!

[johnaries]

113. That's my DREAM ticket - Gore and Kerry. nt

[wryter2000]

2. Fine with me

Especially since he seems to have awakened to how they'll slime and smear him. I think he's ready to fight back.

[ikojo]

247. He's alledgedly awaken now...he's not campaigning

How do we know he would not just campaign using the same Washington based advisers? How would he handle the swift boaters in 2008 differently than he did in 2004? Would he actually step out front and CHALLENGE the election results if it appeared there had been tampering?

[rockymountaindem]

3. This is a huge can of worms. I hope you're ready for it.

But to the point, Kerry was, is and will be one of the Democrats I support.

[buzzard]

210. I will as well even though it makes no difference, I am a Canadian

who obviously does not participate in your elections. I have read and listened to all the pros and cons of a Kerry run and knowing how politicians work still feel that he is a man that I could support. I some ways no politician would fit the bill as to whom I would chose to lead my Country but I have to say that I feel good when Kerry speaks and he is an intelligent man that may take too long to express his views for the average voter but my opinion is that he truly cares. I guess you could say that I have a sort of infatuation with him much as I did with some of the Kennedy's. Your Country could do much worse than to support a man of his character. On the international stage I feel he is one who would really shine not by mere words but by example. I guess reactions to him are very polar here on this board but as an outsider I feel comfort when I hear him speak, I truly think his moral compass is attuned to the ideals of my American neighbors.

[rockymountaindem]

275. Thank you for those kind words

I go to school here in Canada, and I notice there is a lot of mild anti-Americanism. I'm glad to see that at least one Canadian knows that the US isn't a homogeneous place and that Bush doesn't speak for all of us.

[LeighAnn]

4. Kerry gave up too easy

He promised that he wouldn't concede until every vote was counted... then he conceded almost instantly in the face of clear vote fraud all over the country... taking one for the old Skull & Bones, I suspect.

[Faux pas]

231. I'm with you. I like my Presidents to have a pair or set or whatever

euphemism makes the point.

[Bluebear]

5. Not amongst my top choices. nt

[elocs]

31. I agree. He is not among my top choices either.

He has every right to run, but I like some others better for now.

[MrCoffee]

271. Not even close to my top choices, but if he's the nominee, i'll support

[flyarm]

6. i want someone new and not the clintons or * hes!!

so yes..i want the family dynasties over and done with..we need new blood..

Gore or Kerry would do it for me..

no more little lord pissy pants clan and no more Clintons..they have had their run..it is time for new blood..this is not a monarchy...

enough...

yes to Gore ...yes to Kerry ..yes to anyone but the clintons and bushes!

and no to McCain! the turncaot neo con!

fly

[lyonn]

74. Dynasties, ugh, no more, Please!

[Raksha]

7. As long as he's willing to swear in public that he will NEVER AGAIN

concede to traitors, no matter what they threaten him with.

[rodeodance]

25. i do think he has learned his lesson.

[Raksha]

41. That isn't enough. He has to SAY SO during the primary season.

I remember how I cried during his 2004 concession speech, and many DUers were so furious they swore they would never support him again no matter what. Two years later, they still feel that way.

[hootinholler]

224. I would never vote for him in a primary.

If he won it, it would take a special Republican like Teddy R. or Eisenhower to make me vote against him.

-Hoot

[ikojo]

248. Not only does Kerry need to SAY he would challenge

an election if it looks like there had been tampering, but to see him on the forefront of challenging new state laws meant to suppress the vote of poor and minority people would be nice. In Missouri the Republican governor and son of Roy Blunt, signed a law mandating some form of photo ID. It cannot be a work issued ID but must be state issued. The wrinkle is that now in MO, in order to get a state issued ID one needs a birth certificate. There are people who do not have a birth certificate because they may have been born at home and not in a hospital. For those with birth certificates, they may not be able to afford that and the cost of the state ID.

[Richard Steele]

8. I'd certainly vote for him again.

[Champion Jack]

9. No

[lovuian]

10. No Skull & Bone president Please we already have had

one...

[sandnsea]

17. New Rules

Anybody who mentions Skull & Bones automatically goes on ignore.

[Alexander]

35. Why? It's a valid argument.

I didn't know you were the "decider" of who gets to say what in this thread.

Forgive me for NOT wanting my president - no matter what letter comes after their name - to come from a secret society that is so secret they can't talk about it openly.

I didn't realize "We the people" couldn't talk about it either.

We have plenty of non-Skull & Bones members to pick from. Even Dean knew better than to get involved with that crowd, and he went to Yale.

Kerry had a perfectly good first chance, and he blew it. We'll probably never know WHY he blew it, but his and Bush's mutual S&B connections are certainly worth discussing.

[sandnsea]

80. It really is still a free country

I presume people know they don't have to do what I say. My kids figured that out when they were two. I'm not playing S&B anymore, that's all. So goodbye.

[Alexander]

90. Fine, don't answer my question. I thought it was pretty simple.

My question was "why"?

I believed it was a valid argument, and nothing you've said seems to contest it's validity.

Only "I'm not playing S&B anymore, that's all" and a threat to ignore.

When we vote for someone to serve us, shouldn't we know about their personal background? About any - pardon the pun - skeletons in the closet?

I don't know you from anyone, but your response suggests you'd rather ignore valid points and put your fingers in your ears when someone says something you don't like.

Ignore me all you want, but I feel I at least deserve some kind of explanation, particularly since you and I have never discussed Skull & Bones before.

It sounds like something I'd expect from the far-right instead of the left.

Do you do this with your kids?

[michreject]

116. You forgot this part

I don't know you from anyone, but your response suggests you'd rather ignore valid points and put your fingers in your ears when someone says something you don't like.

While saying aloud "la la la la la la la la la".

[Alexander]

127. All I wanted was to know why she won't discuss S&B.

An answer like "because there are too many crazy conspiracy theorists I've had to deal with about this" would have sufficed.

Instead I got nothing, except a threat to ignore. And I assume she followed through on that threat.

Not very liberal, methinks.

[seaglass]

132. Because it's been kicked to death here for at least 2 years. I.

don't blame sandnsea for not wanting to hear it, neither do I. It's done and it's boring. Maybe you'll find someone else who wants to engage with you on it.

[Alexander]

147. So has electoral fraud. I guess that's "done" and "boring".

Gee, Iraq sure has been kicked to death. I guess we shouldn't bother discussing that?

When you go to an employer looking for a job, and they ask you about something on your resume, is your response "It's so secret, I can't talk about it"?

If so, how many jobs have you had?

If not, why should other employers (like the American public) be asked to trust their employees (like a prospective President) like that?

Keep in mind, I voted for Kerry. I worked my ass off for him. But his concession of the election the day afterwards was unforgivable.

This sort of thing also helps push the Naderite argument that "both candidates are the same". I disagree with it, but it gives these folks more ammo.

I guess I should take my concerns about potential presidents elsewhere.

[MissWaverly]

191. I agree with you

I think that the correct response would have been that I have fully discussed my activities
at Skull and Bones with the DNC while I was discussing running for office and it was
cleared. There are some things the public does not need to know like the sordid details
of Clinton's sex life. But there should be a vetting process to weed out the Foleys, every
company does it, why shouldn't we do it for the highest office in the land.

[seaglass]

244. Hmmm what is the difference between electoral fraud, Iraq

and S&B? Perhaps the first 2 are ongoing, perhaps there are actual facts that can be discussed, perhaps there are fresh perspectives...did you have anything new to say about S&B, got some new info?

Because if you do, as I said, maybe someone will like to engage with you on it.

I don't care about Naderite arguments, if they have't figured out after 6 years that they were wrong, they never will.

[Alexander]

269. I'll tell you the difference.

Electoral fraud: Bush & Kerry did.....nothing.

Iraq: Bush & Kerry did.....nothing.

Skull & Bones: Bush & Kerry did.....nothing.

You can be a Kerry shill for as long as you want, but someone who GIVES UP the day after the election without contesting the obviously shady vote count in Ohio (and New Mexico, and Florida, and Pennsylvania, and Nevada...) is not my type of leader.

To hell with Kerry. Why should I give him a second chance when he did such a piss-poor job the first time?

[seaglass]

274. I don't care if you give Kerry a second chance or not. If your

tactic to convince others to agree with you is bringing up S&B, it's been done, it's transparent and that's why it's boring.:rofl:

[Alexander]

281. If you don't care, then don't respond to my posts!

Quite simple. Obviously your cheerleading for Kerry surpasses your "I don't care what you think" messages.

S&B is ONE reason why I don't like Kerry. One of many reasons, which I've spelled out in this thread. If he tweaked his campaign slightly, like maybe talking about BCCI or Iran-Contra more, then this site would be called "Democratic Aboveground" by now.

The only three S&B presidents we've had all turned out to be disastrous.

I don't like candidates that openly keep secrets. The operative word of "secret society" is SECRET. If someone isn't willing to be frank and up front about their background, then I shouldn't be expected to vote for them (again) just because they have a (D) after their name.

[hfojvt]

239. evidently

she is a member :hide:

As for the OP. In the last primary, my preference was something like - Clark, Dean, Edwards, Gephardt, Kucinich, Kerry. The campaign and losing to the Worst President Ever (or if not losing, then failing to bury him in a landslide) certainly do not endear him to me. If he runs, I really, really, really hope he does not get the nomination.

[NoPasaran]

65. Good rule!

[LiberalUprising]

189. Congrats

you just made my ignore list!

[demwing]

208. Skull and Bones!

LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!



LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!

[Alexander]

26. We've had at least two. (GHWB & GWB).

Plus I think some 19th century presidents were S&B as well.

[Prophet 451]

34. Most of your presients for the last 200 years have been Bonesmen n/t

[Alexander]

44. Wrong. Only 3 presidents (Poppy, Shrub and Taft) were.

Skull and Bones didn't even exist until 1832.

And many U.S. Presidents never went to Yale, which is a prerequisite.

It helps to check your facts before you post.

[Prophet 451]

46. You're right.

I was thinking of Freemasons. My mistake.

[Alexander]

55. No worries, there's also Scroll and Key.

And a myriad of other secret societies that I'm sure past presidents have been involved with.

[Imagevision]

153. Exactly! Bonesman Kerry gave Bonesman Bush a courtesy pass and

now he figures it's his turn... Kerry; "your votes will be counted this time"

[zulchzulu]

201. Tin foil makes some really neat hats

Whenever the Bonesman thing comes up, I roll my eyes...

          Look out!  
                 Black helicopters!!! 
          Ei yi yi!  A black cat!  
                     Under a ladder!   
                Next to a broken mirror!!!   
            Ahhhhhh!!!!!

[Alexander]

206. Then why bother responding?

Again, if I'm looking for a job, I don't keep secrets.

John Kerry is no exception to this rule.

[Uncle Joe]

259. Actually we've had three,

Taft, Bush the lesser and Bush the least.

[woo me with science]

266. LOL nt

[Malikshah]

11. To me-- Gore deserves it more-- he has done more good than Kerry.

I'm not sure Kerry really realizes his mistakes. Mouthing the words means one thing, but taking action is something different.

Gore Feingold or Feingold Gore....

We need folks who are willing to fight and who have been "in the wilderness" for a bit-- Gore has-- Kerry's remained in the swamp that is DC.

[blm]

30. I'd make a bet with you on that claim. Kerry effected US history more

positively than Gore has, while both have been in some public service over the last 35 years, starting with their military service.

Gore is a good guy, but theres no comparing their choices in the senate that foretold who they are.

Kerry investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history.

If you are an anti-corruption, open government Democrat, there is no contest.

[Malikshah]

39. One could also make the claims regarding Kerry's votes in support

of the regime's plans are more historic in nature...

He might regret them now-- but they still took place.

No excuses for context will remove that spot.

Gore did not vote on these issues. Kerry did. 600,000+ dead and our reputation in the toilet.

Not much of contest there either.

I'm just sayin... ;)

[blm]

53. Gore was with Clinton in closing the books on IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate

even while there were still some issues that needed resolution. Then Gore helped downplay the CIA drugrunning matter when it was uncovered in their term.

BushInc would have never been able to get into office ever again, no 9-11 would have occurred, and no Iraq war would be going on, if only Clinton-Gore had trusted the American people with the truth. But, instead, they protected Poppy Bush over the constitution.

[nam78_two]

61. I could support a Kerry/Gore or Gore/Kerry ticket though

:D
I think Gore is fairly principled by himself when free of the DLC.

I think together they would make a kickass team :headbang:

Ahhhhh its such a soothing vision :
&




instead of :
http://homepage.mac.com/jholbo/nutwork/images/Cheney,%20Dick.jpg
&

[blm]

111. If Gore pledges to open the books on BushInc, I'll be glad to support him

if Kerry doesn't run.

[LWolf]

12. No thanks.

I didn't give him the first "chance," and I still feel some resentment for those that did. I voted for him once, unhappily. I won't do so again.

[blm]

43. Then resent me and the anti-corruption, open governement wing of the party

instead of resenting the DNC that refused to do their job for four years and secure the election process.

Kerry won - DNC failed.

[LWolf]

96. Kerry did win.

I went to bed late election night, secure in the knowledge that, while I didn't choose him, and wasn't in any way excited about his presidency, at least the Bush administration would be gone.

The fact that Kerry was not my choice, last time or next, does not diminish the reality of corrupt elections. Given that reality, I don't think it really matters WHO the democrats nominate, unless they are willing to aggressively fight to ensure clean elections. I will be there to support all efforts in that direction.

[dionysus]

171. Kerry isn't Jesus Christ you know

he ran a shitty campaign, he should have won by 20 points against the worst incumbent in history. Just sayin...

[blm]

178. Clinton didn't win by 20 pts when IranContra, BCCI and Iraqgate headlines

were beating the crap out of Bush1 for FOUR YEARS.

Kerry faced the most PROTECTED idiot in history, had the last Dem president publically supporting Bush2's policy decisions during his first term, and NO investigations by Congress to hold the idiot accountable.

Kerry STILL won, and if he had a DNC that did its job to secure the election process for the four years they had promised to do so, he would be in the WH with the most votes ever cast.

Kerry helped Clinton far more in 92 with his four years of investigating Bush1 than Clinton helped Kerry with his VERY PUBLIC support for Bush2 on major policy issues.

[ProSense]

187. I think that's a known. In terms of history, look at what Kerry did:

No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president -- a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 -- only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/8618.html

My opinion is Kerry won. In that context he shattered a record.

[rep the dems]

13. If he is the nominee again, then absolutely.

But I'm not convinced that he's our best candidate, so probably not in the primary.

[sandnsea]

14. Whoever can lead us out of this mess

has my vote. Well, whatever Democrat anyway.

[mitchtv]

15. I'm liking what I'm hearing , these days

But what the heck, I'm a liberal, and he's one of the main liberals in gov't, and speaks the truth

[rodeodance]

27. yes. He has been putting our his postions lots over the last 2 years.

[sce56]

16. Gore Yes Kerry NO he had his chance He threw in the towel to soon!

As if by design! Does it not seem funny how he swore he would keep an eye out for electronic vote fraud and then did nothing about it!
It is also funny how he was behind in the polls then beat Dean out with a surprise comeback sound familiar! Remember he shares an allegiance with Bush to the Skull & Bones society so secret neither of them will talk about it!


Got Fascism Yet?

[BlueStater]

37. So Gore deserves a second chance but not Kerry?

What sort of double standard bullshit is this?

This isn't just directed at you. This is to all the "Gore '08" people who are slamming Kerry.

[sce56]

101. Gore Did win his election, fought long and hard to try and get the votes

counted! He did not give up until SCOTUS stopped the recount effectively deciding the election not the voters! Kerry did not he threw in the towel the next day PERIOD!
Gore is not a member of Skull & Bones unlike both Kerry & Bush! I feel Kerry was also selected over Dean who had all the momentum until a setback after an improbable win by Kerry over him COuld it have been DIEBOLD that selected Kerry over Dean? Even the big screen is now yelling at us that electronic voting is dangerous go see Man of the Year it is about crooked elections by blackbox vote theft whether intentional or not!

[politicasista]

150. Exactly n/t

[BlueStater]

181. Well, you're wrong. Completely and utterly wrong n/t

[tavalon]

170. Gore fought to have the votes counted

Kerry did not. Quite simple, really.

[BlueStater]

180. Oh, bullshit

Kerry had zero proof that Bush stole anything. What the hell did you expect him to do?

Gore made plenty of mistakes too during his campaign and you're willing to give him a second chance while not holding Kerry to the same standards. You're being a hypocrite, plain and simple.

Kerry may not be my first choice for our candidate but he has as much right to run as the next guy. The responses in this thread have been ridiculous and disapointing.

[tavalon]

202. Anyone has the right to run

I never said he couldn't.

[karynnj]

211. Is 537 equal to 118,000?

If it is, I agree with you. I don't think it is - and I think it explains the difference. the fact is that in Gore's case, there were votes that could be recounted and in 3 counties physical examination oif rejected voted could enable determining the intention for some ballots not counted.

In Ohio, a recount has never changed this large a loss. Nearly 2 years later no one has proved that the machines WERE rigged. They have found they can be rigged and efforts NEED to be made (not just by Kerry) to prevent this going forward. The Green recount didn't find the votes needed. The RFKjr article found that if everyone who came out to vote could have easily voted, Kerry would have won - but that included an estimate to votes lost to long lines.

Kerry and Feingold have legislation to allow emergency paper ballots to be counted as regular votes when there are inadeguate machines. They are pushing states to adopt this.

[tavalon]

263. And all he would have needed to do to retain my devotion

was wait long enough to determine that. He promised that all of the votes would be counted and before those words were even cold, he made lie of it. He meant that if it looked like the count would go in his favor, he promised to make sure all of the votes were counted, otherwise bye bye.

That's what bothered me. He took any possibility of a reasonable look into things and shot it to hell. Maybe a reasonable look into things would have shown what his consultants surmised but perhaps it wouldn't have. We won't ever know because he torpedoed the possibility with his early concession. And all of those retrospective assessments after there was time for Blackwell to effectively cover his crimes do not tell us anything I really want to know. But had Kerry stayed in the game for a bit longer, we would have had the backing to be able to shine a light on things right away. Then, had the result been the same, I would personally know that he lost fair and square. I don't have that knowledge because he abandoned us and the cause.

[mitchtv]

194. exactly- Bullshit

I love Gore, but I luv JK , too

[sendero]

249. Simple..

... Gore was BLINDSIDED by the election fraud, by 2004 its existence was well established.

Despite claim by one person here that it was "the DNC's job" (sounds like a Repug blaming Clinton) - Kerry did not stop the Repubs from stealing OH and his lame ass 2 month later lawsuits are meaningless.

Yes, I'd give Gore another chance. But not Kerry. He failed every test - he did not do anything about election fraud, he let Swiftboaters EFFECTIVELY smear his war record, he ran a ridiculous campaign with pix of shotguns and windsurf boards that were counterproductive, he is NOT an inspiring speaker and Bush almost bested him in the 3rd debate, absurd.

He chose lackluster advisors who didn't help. Of course, Gore did that also :)

My real take on Kerry is that he simply took way too long to figure out just what kind of people he wasrunning against. I prefer a president who doesn't have to lose a war and then ask for a second chance.

[BlueStater]

252. Give me a goddamn break

I'm sorry not everybody can live up to your impeckable standards but Kerry is only human. Unlike that piece of shit Bush, it's not really his style to smear people.

You have selectiv memory if you think Gore made any less mistakes than Kerry. Did you forget that Gore actually lost a debate to that moron? At least you couldn't say that for Kerry.

Al Gore makes a movie and suddenly he's presidential material again. Kerry is out there fighting for us in the senate opposing virtually everything that turd Bush stands for when many other of his colleagues have caved in and all he gets is a thread full of people slamming him for something he did two years ago (again, what evidence did Kerry have that Bush stole anything?).

They both lost to a halfwit they, with all their years in politics, should have clobbered single-handedly and yet you're only willing to give one of them another chance. That's hypocritical.

[sendero]

253. Hey...

... Kerry is a fine senator, but he is NOT PRESIDENTIAL MATERIAL.

Not everyone can be a CEO either, it has nothing to do with being "human", it has to do with core competencies and with personality.

Kerry fails especially in the latter.

I don't want to reward John Kerry for running a bullshit campaign and losing, giving 4 more years for Bush to wreak havoc (including the virtually unfixable SC appointments) by allowing him to roll the dice again. There are better candidates.

[ProSense]

254. Kerry didn't run a "bullshit campaign"

Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's

By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY

Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.

The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)

"It was supposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.

USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:

• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.

• Political groups' ads were shown 56,627 times. All but 513 were ads by liberal, anti-Bush groups such as MoveOn PAC and The Media Fund. The others were by conservative groups.

Taken together, about 129,000 Kerry or anti-Bush ads were aired, 82% more than the Bush-Cheney total.

The 17 states used were Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

more...

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-07-11-kerry-ads_x.htm

No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president -- a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 -- only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/8618.html

If not for election fraud, he would have won and shattered a record.

[nedbal]

217. Exactly n/t

[Pale Blue Dot]

18. I say no.

I'm about to go see "Iraq For Sale" at a MoveOn.org house party. I still hold Kerry partially responsible for the lives of our soldiers in Iraq.

During the primary, he said that he'd learned he lesson from his mistake to vote for the authorization to go to war. Now he says he's learned from his mistakes in the 2004 campaign.

This time I'd rather see if we can't get someone who will get it right the FIRST time.

[karynnj]

212. Isn't that an Edwards icon?

A co-sponsor of the resolution and a person who in even 6 months into the war thought it was right to go to war. (versus Kerry who voted for the resolution, but spoke against going to war.) Isn't he MORE quilty?

[Pale Blue Dot]

278. No. That's Ned Lamont. nt

[rodeodance]

19. i would vote for him. you bet. would love to see an Intellectual in the WH

[boolean]

20. KUCINICH FOR PREZ!!

Come on. You all know you want it.

[helderheid]

38. His bill for paper ballots has me swooning all over again

[TahitiNut]

42. Liberals are self-defeating.

Feingold/Kucinich or Gore/Kucinich or even Kucinich/Edwards would be outstanding tickets, but liberals give up before they even begin. It must be something about feeling 'superior' and rejecting the notion that we could be in the 'mainstream' in our thinking. After all, if the majority felt the same way, we couldn't feel superior could we?

I'd (literally) give my left nut to see one of those tickets win the Presidency.

[nam78_two]

78. Edwards has a very bad track record on environmental issues

Those other two tickets are pretty good and I would be enthusiastic about them.

I have never understood the enthusiasm about Edwards.

Maybe its just the Edwards supporters I have met, but they never seem to have a reason beyond his charm/smile and his speeches, for liking him :shrug:
They say stuff like he and Elizabeth Edwards are very nice people, came up the hard way, lost a child etc. Which is all stuff to respect etc. but in a legislator I need more than personal likeability.

If he has taken strong steps towards addressing the economic inequities in this society (above a speech about "two Americas" :)) I would certainly think thats worth something. But, I don't know enough about that.

I have mostly only followed people's environmental legislative records and his environmental track record is awful -LCV has often given him scores as low as 37%. Thats really low for a Democrat. I am not sure, with the looming enviro crisis, that a president or VP who doesn't understand the importance of enviro issues would be good for America or the world.

[chimpymustgo]

112. You got a link for that?

Inquiring minds...

[nam78_two]

118. There ya go

http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/John_Edwards_Environment.htm

After Kerry picked Edwards, the LCV among others endorsed him with a semblance of enthusiasm and made arguments about how his record has improved with each year (which is true) but most green groups/greens aren't very enthusiastic about Edwards overall.

Don't get me wrong-he is not like Cheney or Bush. But he just wouldn't be an enviro's first choice or even second or third.

[calico1]

21. Kerry gave up easy and he was too worried about

the damn polls. I would like to see Gore try again though.

[rodeodance]

22. and Rec.

[rodeodance]

23. k

[Alexander]

24. To hell with Hairy Kerry...can we get a NON-Skull & Bones candidate?

There were literally a MILLION things to choose from that could've dragged Bush out of the White House kicking and screaming...

-The Iraq War
-The PATRIOT ACT
-Outsourcing/NAFTA (even Edwards mocked Kerry for this)
-Bush's radio transmitter (again, Edwards suggested Kerry 'pat him down' before the debates)
-DIEBOLD/Electoral fraud/Ohio (Kerry's still mum about this one)
-Swiftboat links to Bush
-The Drug War (let's face it, dope smokers VOTE)

etc., etc....

Did Kerry jump on ANY of these? No.

Did Gore? Hell yes! He fought electoral fraud until he had no more options left.

Would Dean have? I'm almost sure of it, even if he didn't win he would've at least kicked Bush in the nuts the whole time.

So I'm rooting for Gore/Feingold '08. Let's get some REAL opposition this time.

[jus_the_facts]

73. No...Gore did not fight until he had no more options left....

.....he didn't...and Kerry didn't either. :think:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

FAHRENHEIT 9/11:

Congressional Black Caucus members tried to object to the election outcome on the floor of the House; no Senator would sign the objections.

“While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes, Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus tried repeatedly to challenge the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush…. More than a dozen Democrats followed suit, seeking to force a debate on the validity of Florida's vote on the grounds that all votes may not have been counted and that some voters were wrongly denied the right to vote.”

Susan Milligan, “It’s Really Over: Gore Bows Out Gracefully,” Boston Globe, January 7, 2001.

The Congressional Black Caucus effort failed for “lack of the necessary signature by any senator.” Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) had previously advised Democratic senators not to cooperate. ‘They did not.’” Robert Novak, “Sweeney Link Won't Help Chao,” Chicago Sun-Times, January 14, 2001.


IS THERE A SENATOR IN THE HOUSE?

When Democratic members of the Congressional Black Caucus stood up and opposed the assignment of Florida's 25 electoral votes to Bush, why didn't a single senator step up to sign the objections? Why do you suppose Sen. Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-SD) advised them not to cooperate?

[Alexander]

84. Gore was not a SENATOR. Check your facts.

The rules are, a Representative and a SENATOR must challenge the electoral votes.

Remember 2004? The challenge didn't go anywhere until Barbara Boxer (a SENATOR from California) got involved.

Gore was VP, part of the Executive Branch. It was not his place to get involved in a dispute of the Legislative Branch. His job was to preside and that was it.

Your post is a scathing (and deserved) indictment of the Democratic Senators.

But Gore in 2000 was not a Senator.

Ironic, your screenname.

[jus_the_facts]

98. Those are MICHAEL MOORE'S facts......

...I just posted that segment from the movie Fahrenheit 9/11...and ironically I never said anywhere in my post that Al Gore was a Senator. :eyes:

http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16

“While Vice President Al Gore appeared to have accepted his fate contained in two wooden ballot boxes...

[Alexander]

107. You claimed he didn't contest the 2000 Florida vote. Got proof?

I ask, if that was the case, what the hell was the Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore all about?

What were the hanging chads and the butterfly ballot and all the post-election speeches all about?

You then provided snippets from Michael Moore's webpage, claiming that the quote saying he "accepted his fate" meant that he didn't do all he could.

Assuming Moore is a valid source (let's be frank, he's a propagandist too - a liberal propagandist), please show me WHERE Moore said anything that supports your claim that Gore didn't do all he could to make sure the votes counted.

He took it to the courts and brought teams of lawyers down to Florida. He fought for over a month to ensure all the votes were counted, even while his own running mate undermined this effort. What more did you want? A military coup?

Show me some evidence - REAL evidence - that Gore didn't use every legal channel available to contest the stolen votes in Florida, and I'll retract my statement. But YOU are the one challenging my statement, so the burden of proof is on YOU.

[jus_the_facts]

123. The clip from C-SPAN was played showing Gore basically telling....

...the Black Caucus to sit down and shut up in F9/11...not even SENATOR KERRY would sign to allow for a complete re-count then or in '04...the evidence is and always was there...I take MM's account as quite credible...accusing me of calling Gore a Senator...bwahaha...just keep using your illusions anyway you like...seems you will regardless...

Assuming Moore is a valid source (let's be frank, he's a propagandist too - a liberal propagandist). :rofl:

[Alexander]

141. Your "facts" are non-existant.

"basically telling the Black Caucus to sit down and shut up"?

I don't recall him ever saying "sit down and shut up", or anything remotely to that effect. What he DID ask was "is this challenge also signed by a Senator?" repeatedly. And guess what, there was no Senator. Maybe your copy of F-9/11 is different?

Your penchant for hyperbole notwithstanding, the CBC needed a Senator in order for it to be valid. Otherwise the president of the Senate (Gore) must throw out the challenge.

He couldn't do anything, he was bound by law to reject any challenge to the votes which did not have a Senator in agreement.

In order for a valid challenge to a state's electoral votes, you need a Representative and a Senator. The Executive Branch, of which Gore was a member, is not allowed to get involved. BY LAW, he must order any challenge without a Senator to be null and void.

Did you really want him to break the law? Because if he had allowed them to contest the vote without a Senator, he would have broken the law.

Maybe now you realize why I made the point about Gore not being a senator. I wasn't "accusing" you of anything, I was clarifying the job descriptions in a vain hope that you would understand why Gore was legally bound to do nothing.

IT'S NOT HIS JOB. His job, as "President of the Senate", was to preside over the vote count, not to convince Senators to nullify it.

If he tried to get involved, it would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Blame Kerry. Blame the Democratic Senators who did nothing. But blaming Gore just reveals your own ignorance about how our government works.

You need to re-read the Constitution, if you've bothered to read it at all. This kind of thing is discussed in high school civics classes.

You are twisting Michael Moore's words and using your own interpretation of the video as your "facts". If you have a quote, an article, anything which suggests Gore just gave up, I would still be interested. But so far I see nothing, just your biased interpretation of an unbiased constitutional law.

And yes, Moore is a propagandist - just because the facts are on his side doesn't mean he is above using hyperbole and speculation. Laugh all you want; at the end of the day I at least know what the hell I'm talking about. Instead of relying on a movie-maker to support my arguments, I prefer to read the constitution. You should try it sometime.

You can blame Gore all you want for the Senators refusing to join the CBC, but those of us who are familiar with the facts will instead blame the Senators themselves, because that's who deserves the blame.

You might want to change your screenname; I hardly think you are worthy of it.

[jus_the_facts]

175. I hardly think you're worthy of telling me anything......

The United States Supreme Court voted 7–2 to end the recount on the grounds that differing standards in different counties constituted an equal protection violation, and 5–4 that no new recount with uniform standards could be conducted. The 7-2 ruling was more important as the votes had already been counted several times with uniform standards.

However, the 5-4 decision became extremely controversial due to the partisan split in the court's 5–4 decision and the majority's irregular instruction that its judgment in Bush v. Gore should not set precedent but should be "limited to the present circumstances". Gore publicly disagreed with the court's decision, but conceded the election "for the sake of our unity as a people and the strength of our democracy".

:wtf: ...we sure haven't seen that happening in the last 6 years.

He had previously made a concession phone call to Bush the night of the election, then retracted it after learning just how close the election was. Following the election, recounts conducted by various United States news media organizations indicated that Bush would have won if certain recounting methods had been used (including the one favored by Gore at the time of the Supreme Court decision) but that Gore would have won had a full state-wide recount been conducted...

Seven of the nine Justices agreed that the lack of unified standards in counting votes VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTIONAL guarantee of equal protection of the laws, but five agreed that there was insufficient time to impose a unified standard and that the recounts should therefore be stopped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000
-------------------------------------------------------------
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0012/13/bn.13.html



Breaking News
Election 2000: Gore Orders Florida Recounts Suspended, Will Address Nation Tonight; Cheney on Hill to Outline Goals for New Administration


JOHN KING, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, let's start with on front of the camera. 9:00 tonight, a very brief introduction from his running mate,

Senator Joseph Lieberman. Then the vice president will speak to the nation. We're told he understands his main message tonight must be bring the country together, say the process has run its course -- not concede, not say he that lost the election, but say the process has run its course and we must respect the will of the courts.


....the WILL of a rigged court is where the blame actually lies..so now we'll never know what might have been regardless of who did or said what. :nopity:

[Alexander]

183. Please tell me, O wise one, what should Gore have done?

Your attempt at revising history is being called out for what it is - total crap. So now you're revising your argument.

Before, it was "Gore told the CBC to sit down and shut up". When I demonstrated that you were full of it, you changed your argument. Now it's the SCOTUS decision. Should he simply have ignored it? What more did you want?

BTW - the headline of your CNN link is misleading. "Election 2000: Gore Orders Florida Recounts Suspended, Will Address Nation Tonight;" Gore didn't suspend the recounts, the SCOTUS did. So why are you still blaming Gore?

I have yet to hear any constructive criticism from you. Just "Gore didn't do enough" being repeated over and over. It sounds almost like a talking point to me.

We all know why he conceded in the first place....it's the "faulty memory card" on one of the electronic machines in Florida which mysteriously appeared, added thousands of votes to Bush's total, and then diappeared.

If Gore didn't retract his concession I might agree with you. If he didn't fight it in the courts for over a month I might agree with you. But he did. His car turned around on the way to his concession speech because he got word that not all the votes had been counted.

Remember his concession speech (over a month later)? He disagreed with their decision. But he knew that was the end. He couldn't legally do anything else - the only legal option left was for the Representatives and Senators to contest it, which the Senators didn't.

I say again, what more should he have done? I maintain that he did everything in his legal power to ensure the votes counted. Not only that, while Joe Lieberman and Ed Rendell and others in his party were working to undermine him, he STILL fought.

You maintain he should have done more. What, specifically, does that mean? I have yet to hear an answer.

Are you suggesting he should have forcefully taken the presidency? Because I don't see anything else he could have legally done. To try to equate Gore's month-long court fights with Kerry's day-after concession is bunk.

The Supreme Court is the "final arbiter" of justice in the USA. I think their decision was partisan BS, but that's still their decision. After that, there are ZERO options left. Once the Court has made a decision, that's it, it's over. Fin. Exit, stage left. You get the idea.

So far, I've seen a Michael Moore website, a CNN transcript and a Wikipedia summary of the SCOTUS decision. But nothing you've cited suggests Gore simply gave up. It puts lots of blame on the SCOTUS and the Senators, but even your own sources don't blame Gore at all.

Again, the burden of proof is on you. Again, there is nothing in your arguments to support your own claims. Again, you've demonstrated that your screen name is a sad irony.

You challenged my statement. Shit or get off the pot.

[jus_the_facts]

192. Okay let me make this crystal clear....

:smoke:

....I say...FUCK Al Gore and John Kerry....in hindsight...they've both failed miserably in the face of what's happening to the state of our union and don't deserve to lead this country...that's what I THINK and nothing you could ever say will ever change that fact....it's impossible to shit since the constitution got shoved so far up our collective asses in 2000! :hurts:

[Name removed]

205. Deleted sub-thread

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

[Alexander]

272. And you've "failed miserably" at backing up your argument.

But then, when your "argument" or "debate" or whatever you want to call it consists of swearing at me, making straw man arguments and twisting the words of others, and crying to the moderators when someone calls you out on your BS, what more should we expect?

Pick on someone your own size; I think the big kids are too much for you.

[karynnj]

215. Blame Kerry - aren't there 100 Senators, including his running mate?

[Alexander]

218. I blame Kerry for not fighting in 2004.

I blame every Democratic senator for not doing anything in 2000. (Yes, this means Kerry and Edwards)

[karynnj]

214. Assume a Senator signed in 2000, what would have happened?

They could challange the Florida vote - but it's not clear it would lead to the Congress challanging the Supreme Court. It is clear that Gore did everything he could - you can't appeal the Supreme Court. That day when he told the Black Caucus to sit down had to be an most intensely painful day for VP Gore. I assume that if Gore wanted a Senator to stand up, he would have had one -

I assume the reason they wanted to challange it, basically symbolicly, in 2004 was to get the irregularities and problems on the Congressional record and out in the open. In 2000 the problems were known. In 2004, there would be Democrats who remember, but the vast majority of people would never have heard there was a problem. Kerry was asked NOT to be there - so he was in Iraq.

[Alexander]

220. Thank you. You are 100% correct.

A pity the fellow you're responding to doesn't seem to get it.

[jus_the_facts]

226. The pity is you're wrong....

...I'm not a fellow...and I definitely *get it*....there's no reason to assume because we'll never know what *might* have transpired..it IS what it IS now regardless of any assumptions.

[Alexander]

235. I see politeness is lost on you.

Apparently, so are facts and common sense.

As well as constitutional law, the rules of DU and Fahrenheit 9/11.

Run along, now. Go pick fights with someone else. :eyes:

[jus_the_facts]

258. You've not been polite...it's obviously completely lost on you...

....so I've lowered myself to your level now....have a really shitty day!!

[Alexander]

270. Except - I never swore at you.

So....you whine and cry to the mods when I poke holes in your poor arguments, and then you turn around and tell me to "have a really shitty day", complete with a middle-finger-waving smiley.

REAL mature.

Maybe when you grow up, you can have an adult discussion; as for now I think your mommy is calling you for dinner.

[ikojo]

251. According to F 9/11 the Congressional Black Caucus

sought out ONE senator that would sign on with them to challenge the 2000 election. Neither Gore nor LIEberman (surprise there) would challenge the election.

[Alexander]

273. Gore could not challenge the election on 1/6/01.

A sitting Vice-President getting involved in electoral challenges is a big no-no. Particularly when it's his own election.

Lieberman could've challenged it, yes, and I probably would've had more respect for him if he did (especially with all that preaching he does about how he went down South in the 1960s for civil rights, so of course we MUST vote for him 40 years later).

But Gore could not. That's my point. He legally could not.

If you understand the contents of this post, then you are already miles ahead of the individual who chose to "debate" me.

[ikojo]

277. Thank you for the explanation....I understand why Gore could

not challenge the election...as VP he is president of the senate but not a real senator. His function is to make a tie breaking vote for the most part. LIEberman on the other hand COULD have. I get tired of people of a certain age holding up what they did in the "60s" as if that is supposed excuse having lived the rest of their adult lives as conservatives.

[Cha]

28. Everyone deserves a second

chance. The bushits have had 6 years of chances and they've blown every one of them. And before that bush blew all his chances and now he's been to propelled to make a murdering monkey outta himself in front of the whole world.

[rodeodance]

29. He will have lots of company in the primaries:

If Kerry runs, he would have to overcome other Democratic presidential hopefuls such as Sens.
Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, Joe Biden of Delaware, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin and Christopher Dodd of Connecticut.

The list of potential opponents also could include New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, former Indiana Gov. Sen. Evan Bayh (news, bio, voting record), Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, and even Kerry's ex-running mate in 2004, former Sen.
John Edwards of North Carolina.

[Telly Savalas]

199. That list is a compelling case for Kerry.

Aside from Feingold and perhaps Dodd, Kerry would be a far superior president to anybody else you listed. There's a fair share of talent in the Democratic Party, but it's rather slim pickings when it comes to legitimate presidential contenders. For whatever reason, the empty suit wing of the party is disproportionately represented in this group.

Kerry's made his share of mistakes and I strongly disagree with him on a few key issues/votes, but the guy would be a strong leader and would implement policies that would start putting the country in the right direction.

[Prophet 451]

32. Only with some promises

1 - Learn to play hardball. Don't pussyfoot around the issues; if you think Bush is a liar, say so long and loud. Don't back off, don't back down and learn to expect the smears and return them in kind. You'll have the advantage of yours actually being true.

2 - Do not concede until everything has been double and triple-counted. You let Bush get away with what appears almost certain to have been widespread election fraud last time. Spend every penny you've got if necessary but make sure those bloody votes get counted.

3 - Expect the media to be hostile. You handed Bush a couple of golden opportunities last time, most notably when you talked about reducing terrorism to a nuisence. I understood what you were getting at but you still handed them a free pass on that one. Gore did the same thing with his comments on Love Canal and the Internet. What he actually said was perfectly accurate but he should have learned and you must learn to assume that everything you say will be taken out of context, misrepresented and lied about. Be ready for it.

4 - Get out in front of the Swiftboat stuff. Yes, we know it was total BS but a fair few people still believe it. Deny what they say before they bring it up and keep denying it.

5 - Have an armed guard at all times.

The bastards you may be running against will do absolutely anything to keep themselves in power. If that means lying about you, they won't think twice. If it means destroying your reputation, they will and if it means having you shot by a convienient "lone gunman", they won't waste a split-second thinking about it. Expect every trick in the book, up to and including a full-blown coup and you might have a chance.

[skipos]

33. We need good candidates that are non-senators from flippable red states

If Kerry or Edwards were the governor of Ohio or Florida, they'd be sitting in the oval office right now. I hope some candidates come along that have some electoral benefits. And senators are so much easier to slime too.

[democraticinsurgent]

40. Yes for Gore AND Kerry

Let 'em run as co-prez. They did both win.

The other thing that's good about both men is that they aren't new. Sure, it would be fun to see some charismatic newcomer but the Pubs have already shot their wad on Gore and Kerry. There's nothing more they can say that will hurt.

Plus I think that as more and more people get around to agreeing with vote fraud and Bushco's disastrous run, there will be open arms welcoming our true presidents to the White House once and for all.

I know lots of DU'ers (myself included) were frustrated with Kerry's concession, but we still don't know what happened there. Remember when Bush whispered something in Kerry's ear after the 3rd debate?

I always thought he said "If it's close and I win, you'd better concede quick unless you're fond of anthrax. And I don't mean the hair metal band".

[frogcycle]

67. we were all frustrated

with both concessions. It is hard, very hard, to look back and say anything other than "how could you possibly have caved?"

Gore certainly took it pretty far, probably made a judgement that the acrimony had gotten so bad, and since the SCOTUS had spoken, the probability of prevailing was so low as to be not worth the risk of completely destroying his chances 4 years hence. He probably figured "wel, we'll just have to weather this, and the boob will be shown for what he is, and I'll cream him in 4 years". 9/11 changed all that. Nobody knew that was coming, nobody knew how badly bush would perform. But the machine that had stolen it from Gore was in full fettle, and I think he grudgingly judged 4 years later that it was the same scenario as after the SCOTUS decision - that if he ran he would not win, and would then be a 2-time loser and out of it. Once again, despite a poor performance to date, punctuated by the invasion of Iraq, shrub and his organization looked tough, and Gore was doing something he believed in that had implications to the future of the planet. So he opted out again, but I don't think it was "cut and run"; I think he made a judgement of what he could best do to influence crucial events. Whether that judgement was right or not is somewhat immaterial; I believe he made it in good conscience with the facts available, and I respect it.

Kerry is in many respects a replay. Whether he should have, contested further, might have accomplished anything other than self-immolation,is anybody's guess. I would have liked to have seen the whole state of Ohio behind bars in 2004, as well as Florida. I wish there was a way to just tell a state "you are so f*cked up you don't GET any electoral votes". Kerry made a judgement call just as Gore did, and I respect his judgement based on the facts he had at hand. I would have LIKED him to do more, but i defer to his judgement. He was there, I was not.

Kerry was not my favorite early on, and I was sorry to see my favorites (first Gore, then Clark) step aside. But Kerry grew on me. I believe he is a man of principle, is intelligent, experienced, and would to a good job. Most importantly, I believe he would surround himself with good people and at least try to do what is right for the country and the planet, rather than for his own self aggrandizement. I think he would be a better President than he was a campaigner.

I would gladly support either of these, as well as Clark. I think all three are intelligent people whose hearts are in the right place, with deep concerns for where we are headed. I wish we could run them as a team.

[marions ghost]

115. Ditto

Our true presidents.

They both have a lot of experience and can't be swiftboated again. I would go with Gore first for prez, but if he doesn't run, then Kerry.

[Mass]

120. Ditto

[nam78_two]

45. Kerry like Gore is a good man-either one works for me!

He has done a lot of fine work on BCCI, Iran-Contra.
He spoke up for Gary Webb, he worked on the normalization of relations with Vietnam, rehabilitating POWs etc.

Either one of the two is fine with me....

And I don't think he is boring or stilted or yada yada yada-whatever it is Maureen Dowd and other air-heads think is wrong with him or Gore's earth tones blah blah blah...

After 8 years of cowboy rule, I hope people will be ready for someone who actually is measured in their speech and doesn't say the first moranic thing that comes into their thick skull....

"Need some wood?"

[Mz Pip]

47. Please, no

:boring:

Mz Pip
:dem:

[d_b]

48. I have no problem with Kerry running again.

And I'll go further to say that he's my man for '08 so long as he doesn't take shit from the Republicans - which he hasn't been.

Kerry can win if he takes Clinton's advice and 'fights like the devil.' He'd make one damn good president.

Kerry2.0! :D

[dansolo]

60. I have a lot of problems with him running

If we take back control of the Senate, then I want Kerry to be spending 100% of his time doing the job that e was elected to do--namely work on fixing the messes of 6 years of Republican control. There will be more than enough work to be done, and we need him in the Senate, not traveling around the country. He spent far too little time doing is job during the last election cycle.

[BootinUp]

49. Nothing wrong with him running

Let the primary voters decide.

[Monkeyman]

50. John As a Veteran For Kerry don't do it

[blm]

57. Why? You want to blame Kerry instead of the DNC who failed to secure votes

as they promised to do?

Kerry got more votes than anyone in history, and you all blame him.

As if there were no office of Voter Integrity at the DNC who was charged with protecting voters and securing the election process for voters and candidates.

They failed - you all blame Kerry.

[shance]

223. Don't blame the DNC for Kerry's actions.

We could have had another candidate who would NOT have folded at the time we needed them most.

[blm]

255. Name him. Because the DNC would STILL have not secured the election

process for the four years prior to election day.

Name the candidate who would have had a different DNC who actually worked for four years to counter the vote suppression, purged voter rolls, and believed in machine fraud enough to secure the machines before the vote?

[rainy]

52. no way! He went from an anti-war hero to a complete sell out.

Gore will be our knight in shining armour.

[wiley]

54. Dearest CatWoman - Your posts are very un-06 of late

The fact that Kerry is talking about it now makes me sick. Once again, the media must have "set him up"
This is not a can of worms, it's a pile of steaming crap. Kind of makes one think that everything he has been doing since he gave away the office the last time around is campaigning for it again.

He's f*cking talking about Nixon?

[CatWoman]

59. Wiley

I have to join you on that one.

Something about him wanting to represent us again just isn't right.

I can't put my finger on it; however, I'm struggling with this.

[WildEyedLiberal]

125. Why?

If he's not your personal choice, that's fine, but it's exceedingly strange to pretend that it's "not right" that he wants to run. What the fuck kind of comment is that? Is it "not right" for Edwards, Clark, Gore, any other 2008 potetential to want to lead us?

What an odd choice of words.

[CatWoman]

172. um,

the man has every right to run again. And if he does run again, he will get my vote.

the "not right" phrase is reflecting "MY" personal feelings, as in "not feeling right about something".

the choice of words wouldn't be so odd if you weren't fucking trying to twist them.

[WildEyedLiberal]

128. So do you feel the same about every other 2008 potential?

Or do you just have a special vendetta against Kerry? I suppose everything Edwards, etc have been doing is perfectly legitimate - yet you expect Kerry, apparently, to do nothing.

I really wish you'd stop pretending that you just want to talk about 2006, because it's obvious that any mention of Kerry, specifically, in 2008 is what outrages you. Well - too damn bad.

The suggestion that he threw it deliberately in 2004 so he could run again and spend even MORE money, time, energy running in 2008 is beyond stupid and I can't take anyone seriously who would even pretend to believe it.

[CatWoman]

173. your screen name compliments you

[wiley]

200. Didn't say he threw it for 2008, babe.

Those who know me know enough not to start a discussion about Edwards or Clinton, either, until after November 7th (or so probably).

[JI7]

179. because he was asked about this by a reporter

he talked more about foreign policy which has been posted in other threads. this was just a few seconds in the end.

[karynnj]

219. He answered a question of whether he was running..

He didn't announce he was running - or even say he was. He was asked should he be given a second chance and he gave a generic answer - people have run twice. In the context of running twice, I would question his memory if he FORGOT to mention Nixon.

[DeeDeeNY]

56. I have mixed feelings about him

He hired really awful advisors during his campaign.
He chose to go the high road during the Democratic convention, instructing his people not to even say the name "Bush". That was not a good tactic.
He didn't fight back with the Swift Boaters and was too cordial to that slug McCain, who he considered a friend. At one point,
he had a great campaign commercial featuring McCain talking against Bush from McCain's 2000 campaign, and McCain asked him if he
would stop using that ad. At the same time, McCain asked Bush to do what he could to stop the Swift Boat Liars. In response,
Kerry immediately stopped that commercial, but nothing changed with the Swift Boaters. And then McCain goes around hugging his
friend Bush and actively campaigning for him.
He gave up too soon on the recount.
He is still sending emails, so he must have money left over from his campaign which he could have used when it was important.
On the other hand, I think he would have made a good president. My main concern is if he could win an election.

[SpreadItAround]

58. No thanks

I like Kerry a lot but it the '04 loss still smarts.

[flyingfysh]

62. Democrats have lots of great people; I would support any of them

I would be very happy to support Kerry, or Gore, or Edwards, or Dean, or...

Any Democrat would be better than the fool in office now.

[BlooInBloo]

63. DUers don't forgive or give second chances...

... Even if they did, they would have to *actually believe* that Kerry had "grown a spine" (or whatever euphemism you like), instead of just "triangulating" (DU Democrat haters' favorite word). They don't - they are certain he's just as "cowardly" as always, and is just talking tough, and triangulating (BOO!) like a Clinton (BOO! BOO!) would.

[ThomWV]

64. No

[Homer Wells]

66. GORE - KERRY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'd go for that!!!




:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:
WOOT!!!
:bounce: :bounce:
:woohoo: :woohoo: :toast: :party:

[CatWoman]

68. as would I

:)

[politicasista]

156. Good ticket! n/t

[aaronbees]

69. I'll pass

Don't get me wrong: I like the man and what he stands for ... but I'd rather save my second chance for Gore if he chooses to run. The very fact Kerry puts things in this way smacks of testing the waters and the wind, which I don't like. But if he's ultimately the nominee, I'd gladly vote for him.

[NoPasaran]

70. Not my first choice

[leftchick]

71. ah, no thank you

I will not even begin to imagine giving him a second chance after standing down as his votes were stolen. Kinda like giving the husband a second chance after he screwed the neighbor. We can do oh so much better.

[blm]

79. You were screwed by DNC and Terry McAuliffe's office of Voter Integrity.

Kerry was screwed, too. But you blame him for WINNING while relying on the DNC to secure the votes.

[stevedeshazer]

72. Damn right he does. Count me in.

I support him. I don't give a crap about the old news 'he didn't fight back' stuff. That's 2004.

It's the ISSUES now. He was right on them then, and he's right on them now. And he can make an even better argument than before, thanks to the utter collapse of the Republican Party into a cesspool of corruption and greed.

I'm sick of all the defeatist stuff I read here and elsewhere regarding the prospects of various potential presidential candidates.

I don't want to settle for a moderate candidate. I want a real live fire-breathing progressive guy with a big voice and a big profile. So far, no one on our side comes even close to John Kerry in filling that requirement.

He learned something. Good. I want a President who learns from his mistakes and comes back stronger for it.

Good for him. And for us.

[MoonRiver]

75. No. Time for somebody new.

He's a good man and in many ways I respect him. But he folded when he should have fought. I know Kerry lovers will argue this point ad infinitum, but that's my view.

I really want somebody who didn't vote "aye" for the IWR. The three who stand out in that way and many, many other positive ways are: Wes Clark, Al Gore, and Russ Feingold. I hope one gets the nomination and chooses one of the other two for VP.

[zonkers]

76. Nice guy but he's a stiff. Hard for folks to relate to him & his Zsa-zsa

Gabor wife. Don't get me wrong, I love Teresa... more than I like John, actually. But she is just too uncoventional and modern for many people to relate to. Whether its her money and lifestlye or her international-ness (which should be an asset) I don't know. And John just rubs me wrong. First off, he'll be pretty old in 08. 2nd, he just wants it a little too much. I find he takes so long to say things that could be said simply. Also, from what I hear, kind of self centered and often mean to those around him.

[Kahuna]

delete. dupe

I was laughing so hard I must have clicked to post twice. ;)

[Kahuna]

91. LOL!!!

"Zsa Zsa Gabor wife?" :rofl:

[kimmerspixelated]

105. Too old in 08?

What? 62? You must be terribly young to make that statement. Reagon was much older than that wasn't he?

[seaglass]

133. Wow, I wonder what you say when you DON'T like someone. n/t

[zonkers]

136. I just got to call it as I see it. Chrissakes, the future of the world is

at stake!!! Kerry had his shot. I just don't think Kerry feels right now. Besides, Gore should get the first shot if we're going the "do over" route. Dont ya think?

[seaglass]

245. I was talking about your Zsa Zsa comment. If you don't want to

vote for Kerry in a primary, that's legit. I just thought your profession of love for Theresa didn't match up with demeaning her by comparing her to Zsa Zsa.

I don't think either Kerry or Gore "deserves" anything. They can run just like anyone else and if people vote for them - great.

[karynnj]

225. TThis is absolute garbage

Teresa is a brilliant woman who has done serious work on many issues. Having a slight accent in her FIFTH language, doesn't make her Zsa-Zsa. The media and the Republicans absolutely distorted who she is - because being seen for who she is, would validate Senator Kerry. (This is a woman who stood in when her first husband couldn't make a debate - and got rave reviews.)

John Kerry has an enormous number of intensely loyal friends, some going back to Yale or high school - in all their accounts of him, there was an absolute lack of any meanness. His crew on the swiftboats described him as a very caring man.

I have no problem if you prefer another candidate, but didn't the Repblicans do enough characture assasination in 2004 for you? As to too old, I think he and Gore are within the same age range, Biden and McCain are older. He certainly seems to have enough energy.

[LeftCoast]

77. I would be more than happy to see a primary contest between

Gore, Clinton, Kerry, Edwards & Clark. What an amazing array of talent! I would love to hear them talk about why they deserved the nomination. If they could keep from slinging mud at each other and kept it a real debate I think it would only help the Democratic party.

[GreenArrow]

81. nope.

He will never live down the IWR vote; nor will Edwards, Hillary, etc.

Someone new, please.

[tibbiit]

82. no

i dont trust him not to roll over and never counter the swiftboaters like he said he would/will. Trust is gone. We need someone new.
The next candidate must hit hard at EVERYTHING shot at us, not be diplomatic.
tib

[NC_Nurse]

83. Kerry wasn't who I wanted in '04, yet

I voted for him, donated to his campaign, went to his rally in Raleigh.
I would do it again...but I'd rather not.
He is just not that good of a speaker. He improved some during the campaign, but not enough.
He is still longwinded and stiff. He still takes too long to get to his point. He doesn't connect well
with the public - and by that I mean those who aren't paying close attention to politics which is A LOT of people.
The people here who really like him are MUCH more informed than most folks.
I don't expect the majority of Americans to be that motivated to search for what to like about candidates. Call me jaded - you'd be right.
If the candidate doesn't catch their attention and have something that grabs their interest whenever he speaks - it ain't gonna happen.
Our big hope if he is the nominee is that the Repubs will beat themselves - which is what they are currently doing.

[lyonn]

134. Silly observation of Kerry is his use of makeup and possibly

botox. Lately it seems to jump out on the screen. Being an oldie I have respect for wrinkles, ha. As you stated, the masses only see cursory shots of a candidate and Kerry doesn't do well in that area. Democrats in my red area complained about him flip flopping and his wife being too outspoken. Sound bites are critical in a campaign as that seems to be what sticks with the masses.

Clark has the screen presence that could grab the votes. You know exactly what he is trying to say. That's what it will take for a win.

[karynnj]

227. Those were Republican lies

They took a photo of him in 2003 at the point that he was being treated for cancer. That was the before. They then took a picture whan he gained back some weight and was healtier. In both there were lines that would not be there if he had botox.

It is clear watching CSPAN that lighting makes a huge different for Kerry. He can look great in a committee and less good on the Senate floor hours later (or visa versa)

The makeup was a Republican photoshop trick - no one who saw him that day thought he looked orange and he was a normal color at the debate the next day.

[politicasista]

158. Did you help get his message out to the voters?

Just sounds like a repetition of RW, Rovian talking points.

[Pastiche423]

85. lol

NFW!

[survivor999]

86. Why doesn't Kerry just shut up?

People don't change, they just get older, and slower, and dumber. So, how can he think he'd do any better next time?...

[nam78_two]

89. I know I really wish he had shut up about the torture bill as well....

You should have heard him! And that other asshat Kennedy, and that other one Leahy...

All so old, slow and dumb...

Going on and on and on about the death of constitution, blah blah. Seriously, like who cares?

And then there was the time Kerry was all "hey there are all these claims in Woodward's book, we need to ask the Bushies some serious questions".
Again, I was all like "why doesn't he just shut up".

I wish they would all shut up-Gore boring on about the environment, Kerry whining about the constitution and torture.

We need some completely new, completely unproven person, with no track record we can verify, with a hot bod, a killer smile, who speaks fast and doesn't use words with more than one syllable! :bounce: :bounce:

Would that work ;)?

[survivor999]

92. Sure, he can TALK.

But that's all he does. And for anything he says, he makes sure that he could argue he said the opposite later on, if necessary. Who needs more BS?

[nam78_two]

93. Check out his work on BCCI and Iran-Contra

(not to mention all his work on the Vietnam stuff).

He does a LOT more than talk...
Seriously his work on the Iran-Contra stuff in the Reagan years is heroic.
He has a very solid anti-corruption track record.

BCCI: http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_rpt/bcci/
http://alternet.org/election04/19608/

Vietnam normalization:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A50479-2004Jan2?language=printer

Iran Contra:
http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/kerry/062003.shtml

I could highly recommend Rob Parry's book:
"Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & "Project Truth." (1999)

A lot of this stuff is way before my time but that doesn't nullify it.

[karynnj]

228. More RW talking points

You can find decades old statements by Kerry that he could update to change time references and he could give them now and no one would know they were old.

[kimmerspixelated]

97. Wow!

Just Wow! How can you...? Nevermind!

[seabeyond]

102. older, and slower, and dumber.... you are certainly proving your

point

[survivor999]

106. How so?

[seabeyond]

124. this was

about the dumbest post i have seen. in a while, anyway

[survivor999]

145. I agree with you. That one was.

[Mass]

122. I dont want him to shut up - He is saying good things and certainly

DOING better things than most of the other candidates.

[Kahuna]

87. I'll just pass on that. Thanks anyway.

:scared:

[think4yourself]

88. Gore 2008. That's what is really exciting to me.

I'm with alot of others on DU. Kerry broke my heart that morning. We all worked so hard. They promised us. I dig him but it's time for someone who really gets people excited. Come on AL! We will work our butts off and make this happen!

[kimmerspixelated]

104. The planet needs Gore,

And he is so much wiser and ready, I think, really ready. I didn't want Kerry at first, but like others, he really grew on me, and I was so shattered when it all fell apart. He may have learned a lot, but I think because of the concession, a lot of folks don't want to go there. However, I think there are still a lot of fans out there that would do anything for him, and that, my friends ,is what has fueled the idea of a rerun for him. He knows deep down it was stolen. Put yourself in his shoes. If you realized you were the real winner, wouldn't it be hard to keep quiet about it? Wouldn't it be hard to stay put?

[Joe Bacon]

94. He had his chance and he blew it.

No thanks. When he failed to stand up when it became clear that Ohio was stolen, sorry, that's when he lost me.

[Marr]

95. No thanks.

The DLC had it's shot. They've had alot of shots, actually- and they are losers. Perhaps intentionally.

Let's try something new.

[seabeyond]

99. i would be excited giving kerry another chance. i see so many advantages

to kerry running again. i think it plays perfectly. absolutely

[ProSense]

100. Kerry's statements on Iraq make the case against Bush

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2885625&mesg_id=2885625

[janx]

103. It's far too soon for this. n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

135. I'm with you on that. n/t

[politicasista]

165. I agree. It was from Faux, but people here bought into the spin anyway n/t

[chicagolefty]

108. If he runs I plan to vote for him! n/t

[MH1]

109. ABSOLUTELY. He has my vote. n/t

[kma3346]

110. Nope

I think he's a good man and he would have made a good president. But... he had his chance and he gave up way too easily. We don't need to go through that again.

[Imagevision]

114. neither ---> Obama

[Mass]

117. Fine with me - primary voters should decide.

[Cleita]

119. I'd rather give Gore a second chance. I think he

has a good chance of winning and I believe he has a better understanding of how to get us out of the Bush mess than Kerry does.

[politicasista]

169. No need for a double standard. I think they both deserve a shot n/t

[smoogatz]

198. Agreed.

I think for me the difference is that Kerry still has the odor of a political opportunist--staking out his positions based on focus group research, rather than a clear sense of what's right for the American people. Gore, on the other hand, seems much more genuine--not to mention smarter and better prepared to lead the country out of the Bush mess, as you rightly call it.

[karynnj]

229. Kerry was never poll driven

Look at his history - he stood against the entire Seanet on BCCI. He took on the Contra drug running when no one else would. He led the Alito filibuster when he was ridiculed for doing so. The media likes to say this - and the Klein example is spurious. Whether the campaign did focus groups on mentioning abuses or not - Kerry didn't listen to them and spoke about them more than his primary opponents.

Gore actually was poll driven in 2000. I think he's moved from that though.

I would gladly support either, but I don't think Gore will run. I just saw his movie and I thing the RS magazine comment that he wants to push global warming enough that someone else could run on it as one issue may be where he really is. (If Gore doesn't run, that person may well be John Kerry. Among the ways to help, the enviromentalist who showed the movie mentioned that there was carbon trading between old and new plants - a technique based on the method used in the Clean Air act, which was based on how acid rain was handled in the NE - a method originally pushed by a young lt governor from MA. Kerry and Snowe introduced bi-partisan global warming legislation right before the recess. The question is whether Gore's excellent work can provide the support so something could succeed.)

[Blue_Tires]

279. +1

[Rex]

121. No.

nt

[Skip Intro]

126. Absolutely. n/t

[NV Whino]

129. Hell, no.

I didn't like him shoved down my throat in the first place, and I certainly don't want him shoved down my throat again.

[porphyrian]

130. We'll see. Let's get through November first.

I like the way he's been acting recently. Let's see what happens between now and then.

[WildEyedLiberal]

131. What is the point of this post?

Are you bored? Need a good flamewar? Don't be disingenuous and pretend you don't know exactly what result this thread would bring. You know there are a dedicated faction of people on DU who support John Kerry, several who are on the fence, and several who are violently and belligerently opposed to John Kerry for various and sundry reasons. Have they not been flaming him enough on other threads? Or did you just want them gathered in one place?

Seriously, major bad form for starting this deliberate flamebait thread. :thumbsdown:

[BlooInBloo]

146. Yah - that evil catwoman - what a bitch she is. Sheesh. You're a genius.

[CatWoman]

174. LOL

Why am I suddenly becoming aroused? :hi:

[BlooInBloo]

177. Rawr! (grin)

I love cats.

[Rowdyboy]

137. He's welcome to run but he won't get my vote in our primary. He was

a weak candidate in 2004 and allowed himself to be "swiftboated", ignoring it when he could have fought back. Well, the damage is done, his reputation is tainted, and I think he should finish out his career in the senate.

I want a NEW face, a face of the future. But, as always, I'll accept the will of the majority of my party. If they choose Kerry, or Gore, or Clinton, I'll vote for them, but I I really think we can do better.

[Critters2]

138. If he gets the nomination, I'll vote for him in the general

but I have instituted a policy since the last presidential election...I won't support anyone in the primaries who didn't attend public schools. It's time to stop nominating elitists who have no idea how normal Americans live or what our concerns are. Besides, these guys end up with huge power over institutions they never experienced--public schools being only the most obvious.

So, no, I won't support his nomination.

[AtomicKitten]

139. I say we kick-ass in the upcoming midterms first.

And afterwards we can knock the crap out of each over the 2008 primaries.

[Mass]

140. The premise of the question is absolutely stupid. This is not about

second chance and personnal ambitions. It is about


WHO IS THE BEST MAN TO LEAD THIS COUNTRY
IN A DIFFICULT PERIOD WITH A LOT OF CHALLENGES.


If you think that Kerry is this man, you should support him.

If you think somebody is better, you should support this person.

It is about how you assess the problems and who has the best solution.

The rest is pure BS and I am not surprised that the question comes from FOX.

[kerrygoddess]

148. Well said!

Thank you.

[BootinUp]

142. The worst part of Kerry running again

is reading all the bullshit excuses for him losing.

[AntiFascist]

143. Kerry is the only politician I have seen with the ability to...

attack the fundamental roots of the culture of corruption in Washington D.C., namely the BCCI money laundering network and all the (Abramoff/al Qaeda) corruption spawning from it. A Kerry/Gore ticket would be very powerful...or Gore/Kerry.

[Ignacio Upton]

144. No

He had his chance already, and unlike Gore, people will remember his negatives more, and unlike Gore it's harder to prove that he won Ohio than it is to prove that Gore won Florida (which he ultimately did!) Hillary and Kerry are two candidates that will NOT get my vote in the primary. I don't want to run a candidate that will instantly have 45%+ of the electorate equating him with with some anti-war protestor a la Jane Fonda (which is bullshit, but after those Swiftboat ads, which he failed to fight back against, he'll have a whole segment of voters that will dimiss him, who would otherwise consider another Democratic candidate.)

If we nominate Kerry, he will end up as a later day Adlai Stevenson. I would like to see Gore run, because unlike Kerry, he has more of a perception of legitimacy, and can remind voters more effectively of the 1990's when peace and prosperity reigned.

[politicasista]

149. Happy Sunday at Trash Democrats Underground

:boring:

[ecstatic]

151. NO, he moves WAY too slowly for my taste

Sure he corrects his mistakes, WELL after the fact and way too late for it to even matter. I think Kerry has great achievements under his belt, but they were easy for him to achieve, considering his background. Let Edwards or Clinton run. Kerry needs to sit this one out, he already blew it with the folks who were on the fence about giving him a chance the first time around.

[karynnj]

232. His achievements were easy for him to achieve?????

- To be a decorated war hero
- To intelligently fight the Vietnam war and show the eloquence, maturity, brilliance and morality he did
- To have the guts to fight the entire Senate and the President to help close down BCCI.

What are Edwards great achievements. He made millions as a trial lawyer. I am more impressed that Kerry opted for lower paying public service positions.

[The Count]

152. The arrogance of the statement shows a sense of entitlement, like the BFEE

No need to even go in all the other reasons it's not true.

[patricia92243]

154. If I were to give anyone a second chance, it would be Gore not Kerry. n/t

[politicasista]

161. Nice double standard n/t

[ProSense]

155. Looks like the top choices are Gore and Kerry!

Kerry is ahead!

[robbedvoter]

157. Reminds me when he said the 2004 result was God trying him...

It was always about John Kerry - never about the voters, democracy or the bigger picture.
This amazing statement proves he is still there, inside that monumental ego...Nothing changed.
I wonder how he feels these days about people still crying in their tea cups about stolen elections...
But then again, he says he learned something, but he still doesn't come out and says he won...
The comparison with Nixon is wrong on so many levels I can't begin to list them.
What exactly did he learn from the day he conceded and allowed his voters to be called losers and be preached the "values" BS???

[ProSense]

162. Come on! Did you think he had a

monumental ego when you voted for him! Give it a rest. You could search DU a thousand ways to find out anything you want to know. In fact, some of the responses are to your previous posts!

[mnhtnbb]

159. Kerry was never my choice first time around. Hope he doesn't get the nod

[tavalon]

160. Nope

I would give Gore a second chance but not Kerry. He betrayed me and I don't care to forget that, even if I have gone fairly far in the forgiving him. It's a shame because I adore his wife, but no, no Kerry for me, thank you.

[dailykoff]

163. I say rock on, John.

We got your back! :yourock:

[Olney Blue]

164. I would vote for him again.

[politicasista]

166. I would too n/t

[robinlynne]

167. no.

[The Backlash Cometh]

168. Kerry can win.

He's got to come out a fighter, and he can't buckle when they start whining about his hair, like they did to Gore. He must decide now what kind of candidate he wants to be, then he needs to stick to it. You know people like Chris Matthews are going to be making biting, innane comments to see if he'll change.

[stepnw1f]

176. I'd Campaign for Him (nt)

[CorpGovActivist]

182. On a Related Note...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2401396&mesg_id=2401396

Best,

- Dave

[DireStrike]

184. Kerry was MASSIVELY damaged in the '04 campaign

Everywhere I go, even among dems, people talk about how kerry "would not have been much better." I don't know how to even start repudiating this stuff.

[Sydnie]

185. Yes, please

I could work for that end again, gladly.

[ProSense]

186. Also note: The word "deserves" is part of the headline not Kerry's quote.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,220957,00.html

[barrytonmi]

188. Bill Maher

Did any of you see John Kerry on the Bill Maher special from Washington, D.C., last week? He said that he didn't think people wanted to see more dirty campaigning than what they were already getting, so he didn't respond in kind. He said he and his campaign advisers felt that the swiftboat controversy would resolve itself without Kerry having to attack other veterans, which he didn't think would fly well with veterans across the country.

Bet your sweet bucko that I would back him in 2008. I liked him in 2004, and I like him now. I don't dislike any of the others, but I find Kerry to be what I - notice, I said "I" - want in a President.

[Bucky]

207. Welcome to DU, Barry

Always good to see new posters here

[karynnj]

230. Welcome to DU - that was a nice Kerry appearance

There a John Kerry group (under Democrats) in the lobby.

[windbreeze]

190. I say no....

He didn't convince me he wanted it bad enough the first time...why try the second time...there are others...let them try..and let him stay in the Senate...
windbreeze

[saltpoint]

193. He'd have my vote, no questions asked.

Comprehensively qualified for the job.

We need a leader who is an adept in the environment, health care policy, and who can re-establish our diplomatic currency with our allies.

Kerry would be on such.

[smoogatz]

195. A second chance, or a second nomination?

Sure, let him run again. But I think there are better choices than Kerry.

[TayTay]

196. I would say, from having been in the room during that speech

that a lot of NH Democrats are willing to give him another chance. There were a number of Democratic activists around me who thought he was doing a great job and would make a great President and were mulling over working for him again. They were considering their choices for '08 and these NH people were very, very warm toward the tall Senator from Massachusetts.

That should count for something. I spoke with Teresa Heinz Kerry that night and she had been working very hard lately for friends running for local office in Iowa (City council and other local races.) I thought it was very nice that THK was in Iowa and I heard very, very good things about how warmly she had been received, again, by Democratic activists who know how to put together a caucus vote.

I am very, very happy with how it went. Why wouldn't I be? It's nice to see ground troops in states as interesting as NH and Iowa start to get excited about great Democrats like John Kerry. What's not to like in that?

[bonzotex]

197. No, Un-Uh, nyet, non, sorry, nahhh

It doesn't matter that scumbag republicans ran lost and later won. People deserve second chances but not necessarily to run for President.

Kerry is getting a second chance to be a Senator with a spine. He's doing pretty good with that one, so I say keep that up.

Kerry lost a race that was his too lose against the Worst President Ever. Terry McAuliffe lost it for him? No. Who enabled Terry? Swiftboaters smeared him? Who didn't fight back immediately and forcefully? Vote suppression and fraud? Who didn't make it an issue early and follow through when it happened? No coherent Democratic message? The Democratic Presidential nominee is the de-facto head of the Democratic party.

Too many people have died. The Constitution has been shredded. Too many billions squandered. Too much poison added to our world. America is now a nation that tortures and detains people without due process. None of the people that died because Chimpy was left in office will get a second chance.

All our support, all our money, all the campaigning, unprecedented fund raising, unprecedented 527 support, Generals, Intelligence officers, Nobel winners all lined up with unqualified support; POOF! ...4 more years of Chimpy and friends.

Mr Kerry? You maybe want another chance?

No, fuck No. Sit it out John. I like you John, you are a good man and a good Democrat, but sit this one out. Help us in the Senate, we need you there.

[Yukari Yakumo]

203. The simple answer: NO.

When 2008 rolls along, the people are going to be very tired of Washington. So Kerry and H. Clinton would be very bad ideas for the Pres nom. Veep, that's viable, but not Pres.

Plus he has a serious problem with charisma, he doesn't have any. The issues will get you the nom, charisma will get you the White House.

And his inability to neutralize the Swift Boaters makes me wonder how effective he'll be with the next Swift Boating.

Finally, he couldn't get it done against a clearly vulnerable Chimpy.

Sorry, we need someone with the ability, the skill, and the drive to win.

[BeHereNow]

204. You've GOT to admire his devotion to the BFEE agenda.

Everybody knows the only way to introduce the
necessary military draft, to continue the cluster fuck in
the ME, is under a "DEMOCRAT."

What a good Skull and Boner he is.

BHN

[karynnj]

233. That's cheap and disgusting

How does fighting the Contras and BCCI fit with teh BFEE? Not to mention that Kerry and Feingold are the people most fighting to get us out of Iraq.

You are pathetic

[ProSense]

246. It's Clinton who is Bush Sr.'s surrogate son!

Kerry on the other hand:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2870996&mesg_id=2870996

[nam78_two]

265. Good God

:eyes:

[demwing]

209. Everyone deserves a second chance

but that doesn't mean he deserves the nomination.

That's where the "chance" bit comes in. Kerry'll have to fight for it.

[nedbal]

221. Kerry , Only as VP to Gore or Wesley Clark

[Mass]

241. And he did not say anything else in the interview. Credit AP for the title

[lonestarnot]

213. Nope. He shouldn't have given in when there was clear evidence

of vote suppression and cheating via machines. Nope.

[nedbal]

216. I'd rather give Gore a second chance.

[shance]

222. Why does John Kerry think he deserves a second chance?

How has he earned a second chance?

What has he done since his concession to reveal he deserves a second chance?

Has he talked to voters (not at fundraisers), to find out about the fraudulent activity, the voter suppression that occurred in so many counties?

Has he investigated and written important articles like Bobby Kennedy?

Has Mr. Kerry taken any risks to reveal his concern and authenticity in legitimately wanting to know the truth?

What has he done publicly to change the fraudulent election process, while American citizens and other activists have worked tirelessly to bring him on board and others as well?

In that respect John Kerry seems to sound a bit like George Bush Jr. by assuming he deserves something that in my opinion he has not earned. Perhaps Im missing something. However, when I look at where we are two years after the 2004 election, I have seen no strides taken by Mr. Kerry - no courageous stances. Our country is teetering on economic collapse and virtual immobilization.

How does he deserve a "second chance"?

Because he says so?

I would say he 'deserved' it, if he had sought true justice.

He, unlike Al Gore, had the mobilization and support of millions of people who had since awakened from the 2000 election.

Instead, he and others essentially blocked an effective fight and inquiry as to what happened in Ohio. At the least, he has done sorely little to remedy the electoral situation we are in. We are feeling the pain and uncertainty here in America while Mr. Kerry sits safely in his Senatorial seat in Washington D.C.

I think the issue here is trust.

I would like to trust Mr. Kerry - I think we all would. Goodness knows we desperately need some leadership now more than ever. Has Mr. Kerry been a leader the past two years. What has he done to mobilize Americans?

Perhaps he might want to tell us what he has accomplished in the past two years to warrant our trust?

Also, I cant help but remember his words of Americans needing to "get over it", when speaking of the coup that occurred in 2000.

Because John Kerry did not fight for an election that by all intents and purposes that was rightfully his, he has done nothing to deserve a second chance.

I would have to say, at this point, on the contrary.

[ProSense]

250. Kerry didn't say deserve, and to answer your other questions

(I know people don't like to do searches, so here):

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/ohio_provisional_11-03-04.html

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/11/02/election.main/index.html

http://archive.salon.com/politics/war_room/2004/11/02/ohio_provisional/index.html

http://www.wkyc.com/news/news_print.asp?id=25809

I worked as a Green volunteer . . .

on the recount here in Ohio and you're right, Kerry's team was here all the way. In one of the counties I witnessed in, his witnesses worked late into the night with our coordinator and uncovered false numbers that led to the revelation that every ballot in the county had been recounted w/o witnesses between the certified vote and the official recount itself.

Snip...

by ponderer on Sun Apr 23, 2006 at 02:14:12 PM EDT

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2006/4/23/115230/700/26#c26

Kerry continued legal efforts:

Today, Kerry-Edwards filed a document in support of that statement. Most significant, Kerry-Edwards also filed today a separate document in support of our motion for hearing with two critical attachments: 1) a declaration from Kerry-Edwards attorney Don McTigue regarding a survey he conducted of Kerry-Edwards county recount coordinators; 2) a summary chart of the results of that survey (which highlight the inconsistent standards applied during the recount).

http://forum.truthout.org/blog/story/2005/2/24/183243/756

http://www.truthout.org/pdf/cobbbadnariktransfertatement22305.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmctiguedecl22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardsmotionforhearing22405.pdf
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardssummarychart22405.pdf (counting)
http://www.truthout.org/pdf/kerryedwardstransferstatement22405.pdf

"In his first high-profile address since conceding the presidential election, Senator John F. Kerry used Boston's annual Martin Luther King Jr. memorial breakfast yesterday to decry what he called the suppression of thousands of would-be voters last November.

"Thousands of people were suppressed in their efforts to vote. Voting machines were distributed in uneven ways," the former Democratic nominee told an enthusiastic audience of 1,200 at the Boston Convention and Exhibition Center in South Boston."

"In Democratic districts, it took people four, five, 11 hours to vote, while Republicans through in 10 minutes. Same voting machines, same process, our America," Kerry said.

Snip...

In an e-mail message he sent to his supporters on the day before Congress certified the election results earlier this month, Kerry cited "widespread reports of irregularities, questionable practices by some election officials, and instances of lawful voters being denied the right to vote" in the battleground state of Ohio.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/01/18/kerry_alleges_voters_were_suppressed?mode=PF

As Conyers report stated:

Whether the cumulative effect of these legal violations would have altered the actual outcome is not known at this time. However, we do know that there are many serious and intentional violations which violate Ohio’s own law, that the Secretary of State has done everything in his power to avoid accounting for such violations, and it is incumbent on Congress to protect the integrity of its own laws by recognizing the seriousness of these legal violations.

B. Need for Further Congressional Hearings

It is also clear the U.S. Congress needs to conduct additional and more vigorous hearings into the irregularities in the Ohio presidential election and around the country.

While we have conducted our own Democratic hearings and investigation, we have been handicapped by the fact that key participants in the election, such as Secretary of State Blackwell, have refused to cooperate in our hearings or respond to Mr. Conyers questions. While GAO officials are prepared to move forward with a wide ranging analysis of systemic problems in the 2004 elections, they are not planning to conduct the kind of specific investigation needed to get to the bottom of the range of problems evident in Ohio. As a result, it appears that the only means of obtaining his cooperation in any congressional investigation is under the threat of subpoena, which only the Majority may require.

http://www.house.gov/judiciary_democrats/issues/issues/election.html

Almost a year later:

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

February 10, 2006

Associated Press Reports: Ohio Recount Suit Dismissed
According to the Associated Press, the Ohio recount suit has been dismissed:

Judge Dismisses Penultimate Ohio Lawsuit
By JOHN McCARTHY, Associated Press Writer
Thu Feb 9, 10:42 PM ET

COLUMBUS, Ohio - A federal judge has thrown out a lawsuit over Ohio's recount of the 2004 presidential election, leaving only one court challenge remaining from the state's role in the re-election of President Bush.

U.S. District Judge James Carr in Toledo threw out the suit filed by a voting rights group on behalf of the Green Party and Libertarian candidates. Tuesday's dismissal, barring an appeal, leaves active only a suit filed by the League of Women Voters of Ohio.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2006/02/associated-press-reports-ohio-recount.html

Blogged by JC on 08.22.05 @ 04:19 PM ET

Fighting for Every Voter

A few more words about an issue that is of the utmost importance to me.

As political candidates, we spend considerable time and effort every election cycle fighting for votes. After the election, whether won or lost, many candidates leave the irregularities of the election behind. But we owe the voters more than that. When voters are disenfrachised, we owe it to them to seek justice and expose the truth. That is why I have been so proud of the Kerry-Edwards campaign's ongoing involvement in the investigation and litigation of what went wrong in Ohio. I wrote to the candidates recently to ask that they continue to be involved in this important endeavor.

This is not about the past. It is about figuring out what went wrong and why -- and then getting the next election right, not for the Democratic Party, but for all of the voters.

http://www.conyersblog.us/archives/00000213.htm

August 31, 2005

Kerry and Edwards to Stay in Recount Case!!! Trial to Start in August 2006

Don McTigue, attorney for John Kerry and John Edwards, appeared in federal court in Toledo, before Judge Carr, on August 30th, and told the Court that Kerry and Edwards intend to remain in the case.

Judge Carr set an August 22, 2006 trial date.

Additionally he consolidated the two recount cases, Rios v. Blackwell and Yost v. Cobb & Badnarik. He gave the plaintiffs until September 15th to file amended pleadings (plaintiff's counsel had requested an opportunity to streamline their claims).

Judge Carr set a discovery cut-off of May 1, 2006, and ruled that any summary judgment motions must be made by May 15, 2006.

http://fairnessbybeckerman.blogspot.com/2005/08/kerry-and-edwards-to-stay-in-recount.html

http://audio.wegoted.com/podcasting/122105SenatorKerry.mp3

http://www.stephaniemiller.com/bits/2006_0517_kerry.mp3

DECEPTIVE PRACTICES AND VOTER INTIMIDATION PREVENTION -- (Senate - November 10, 2005)
GPO's PDF

--- Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I proudly join as a cosponsor of Senator Obama's Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005. This important legislation will protect voters from the deceptive practices that aimed to keep them from the polls on election day.

Free and fair elections are the foundation of our democracy--a democracy built on the unassailable principle that every single American should have an equal say in their government. No American should ever approach their polling place in fear. No American should ever worry that they will somehow be penalized for exercising their fundamental right to vote . No American should ever be tricked into thinking they do not have the right to vote .

The Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevent Act takes great strides towards ensuring that no American will ever be denied the right to vote . It both criminalizes deceptive practices and provides affected individuals with a private right of action. It prevents the negative effects of deceptive practices by ensuring voters get accurate election information. It also requires the Attorney General to report allegations of deceptive practices, the actions taken to correct them, and any prosecutions resulting from those allegations.

We have worked hard to bring fair and free elections to people around the word-including the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. We must do everything in our power to ensure that our own elections are at least as fair and as free.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbn...


S.1975
Title: A bill to prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.
Sponsor: Sen Obama, Barack (introduced 11/8/2005) Cosponsors (4)
Related Bills: H.R.4463
Latest Major Action: 11/8/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(4), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)
Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham - 12/12/2005
Sen Feingold, Russell D. - 12/12/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 11/10/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 12/12/2005

Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005

(Introduced in Senate)

S. 1975 IS

109th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1975

To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

November 8, 2005

Mr. OBAMA introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration

A BILL

To prohibit deceptive practices in Federal elections.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act of 2005'.

SEC. 2. DECEPTIVE PRACTICES IN ELECTIONS.

(a) Civil Action-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subsection (b) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)) is amended--

(A) by striking `No person' and inserting the following:

`(1) No person'; and

(B) by inserting at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) No person, whether acting under color of law or otherwise, shall knowingly deceive any other person regarding--

`(A) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession; or

`(B) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any election described in subparagraph (A).'.

(2) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION-

(A) IN GENERAL- Subsection (c) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(c)) is amended--

(i) by striking `Whenever any person' and inserting the following:

`(1) Whenever any person'; and

(ii) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:

`(2) Any person aggrieved by a violation of subsection (b)(2) may institute a civil action or other proper proceeding for preventive relief, including an application in a United States district court for a permanent or temporary injunction, restraining order, or other order.'.

(B) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS-

(i) Subsection (e) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(e)) is amended by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (c)(1)'.

(ii) Subsection (g) of section 2004 of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(g)) is amended by striking `subsection (c)' and inserting `subsection (c)(1)'.

(b) Criminal Penalty- Section 594 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) by striking `Whoever' and inserting the following:

`(a) Intimidation- Whoever'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(b) Deceptive Acts-

`(1) PROHIBITION-

`(A) IN GENERAL- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly deceive another person regarding the time, place, or manner of an election described in subparagraph (B), or the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any such election, with the intent to prevent such person from exercising the right to vote in such election.

`(B) ELECTION- An election described in this subparagraph is any general, primary, run-off, or special election for the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, Delegate of the District of Columbia, or Resident Commissioner.

`(2) PENALTY- Any person who violates paragraph (1) shall be fined not more than $100,000, imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.'.

(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 3. REPORTING FALSE ELECTION INFORMATION.

(a) In General- Any person may report to the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or the designee of such Assistant Attorney General, any act of deception regarding--

(1) the time, place, or manner of conducting a general, primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office; or

(2) the qualifications for or restrictions on voter eligibility for any general, primary, run-off, or special election for Federal office.

(b) Corrective Action-

(1) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in paragraph (2), not later than 48 hours after receiving a report under subsection (a), the Assistant Attorney General shall investigate such report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall--

(A) undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the deception, and

(B) refer the matter to the appropriate Federal and State authorities for criminal prosecution.

(2) REPORTS WITHIN 72 HOURS OF AN ELECTION- If a report under subsection (a) is received within 72 hours before the election described in such subsection, the Assistant Attorney General shall immediately investigate such report and, if the Assistant Attorney General determines that an act of deception described in subsection (a) occurred, shall immediately undertake all effective measures necessary to provide correct information to voters affected by the deception.

(3) REGULATIONS-

(A) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General shall promulgate regulations regarding the methods and means of corrective actions to be taken under paragraphs (1) and (2). Such regulations shall be developed in consultation with the Election Assistance Commission, civil rights organizations, voting rights groups, State election officials, voter protection groups, and other interested community organizations.

(B) STUDY-

(i) IN GENERAL- The Attorney General, in consultation with the Federal Communications Commission and the Election Assistance Commission, shall conduct a study on the feasibility of providing the corrective information under paragraphs (1) and (2) through public service announcements, the emergency alert system, or other forms of public broadcast.

(ii) REPORT- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to Congress a report detailing the results of the study conducted under clause (i).

(c) Reports to Congress-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 90 days after any primary, general, or run-off election for Federal office, the Attorney General shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report compiling and detailing any allegations of deceptive practices submitted pursuant to subsection (a) and relating to such election.

(2) CONTENTS-

(A) IN GENERAL- Each report submitted under paragraph (1) shall include--

(i) detailed information on specific allegations of deceptive tactics;

(ii) any corrective actions taken in response to such allegations;

(iii) the effectiveness of any such corrective actions;

(iv) any suit instituted under section 2004(b)(2) of the Revised Statutes (42 U.S.C. 1971(b)(2)) in connection with such allegations;

(v) statistical compilations of how many allegations were made and of what type;

(vi) the geographic locations of and the populations affected by the alleged deceptive information; and

(vii) the status of the investigations of such allegations.

(B) EXCEPTION- The Attorney General may withhold any information that the Attorney General determines would unduly interfere with an on-going investigation.

(3) REPORT MADE PUBLIC- The Attorney General shall make the report required under paragraph (1) publicly available through the Internet and other appropriate means.

(d) Federal Office- For purposes of this section, the term `Federal office' means the office of President, Vice President, presidential elector, Member of the Senate, Member of the House of Representatives, or Delegate or Commissioner from a territory or possession of the United States.

(e) Authorization of Appropriations- There are authorized to be appropriated to the Attorney General such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section.

S.450
Title: A bill to amend the Help America Vote Act of 2002 to require a voter-verified paper record, to improve provisional balloting, to impose additional requirements under such Act, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Sen Clinton, Hillary Rodham (introduced 2/17/2005) Cosponsors (6)
Related Bills: H.R.939
Latest Major Action: 2/17/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. COSPONSORS(6), ALPHABETICAL : (Sort: by date)


Sen Boxer, Barbara - 2/17/2005
Sen Dayton, Mark - 3/7/2005
Sen Kerry, John F. - 2/17/2005
Sen Lautenberg, Frank R. - 2/17/2005
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. - 3/1/2005
Sen Mikulski, Barbara A. - 2/17/2005

S.450

Count Every Vote Act of 2005

(Introduced in Senate)
Beginning
February 17, 2005

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.

Sec. 104. Voter verification and audit capacity funding.

TITLE I--VOTER VERIFICATION AND AUDITING

SEC. 101. PROMOTING ACCURACY, INTEGRITY, AND SECURITY THROUGH PRESERVATION OF A VOTER-VERIFIED PAPER RECORD OR HARD COPY.

SEC. 102. REQUIREMENT FOR MANDATORY RECOUNTS.

SEC. 103. SPECIFIC, DELINEATED REQUIREMENT OF STUDY, TESTING, AND DEVELOPMENT OF BEST PRACTICES.

SEC. 104. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.

`PART 7--VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING

`SEC. 297. VOTER-VERIFICATION AND AUDIT CAPACITY FUNDING.

`SEC. 298. APPROPRIATION.

SEC. 105. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION SERVICES.

`SEC. 248. REPORTS AND PROVISION OF SECURITY CONSULTATION SERVICES.

SEC. 106. IMPROVEMENTS TO VOTING SYSTEMS.

TITLE II--PROVISIONAL BALLOTS

SEC. 201. REQUIREMENTS FOR CASTING AND COUNTING PROVISIONAL BALLOTS.

TITLE III--ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE HELP AMERICA VOTE ACT OF 2002
Subtitle A--Shortening Voter Wait Times

SEC. 301. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS, POLL WORKERS, AND ELECTION RESOURCES.

`Subtitle C--Additional Requirements

`SEC. 321. MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.

`Subtitle E--Guidance and Standards

`SEC. 299. STANDARDS FOR ESTABLISHING THE MINIMUM REQUIRED VOTING SYSTEMS AND POLL WORKERS.

SEC. 302. REQUIREMENTS FOR JURISDICTIONS WITH SUBSTANTIAL VOTER WAIT TIMES.

`TITLE X--REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER WAIT TIMES

`SEC. 1001. REMEDIAL PLANS FOR STATES WITH EXCESSIVE VOTER WAIT TIMES.

Subtitle B--No-Excuse Absentee Voting

SEC. 311. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.

`SEC. 322. NO-EXCUSE ABSENTEE VOTING.

Subtitle C--Collection and Dissemination of Election Data

SEC. 321. DATA COLLECTION.

`SEC. 323. PUBLIC REPORTS ON FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

Subtitle D--Ensuring Well Run Elections

SEC. 331. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.

`SEC. 324. TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS.

SEC. 332. IMPARTIAL ADMINISTRATION OF ELECTIONS.

`SEC. 325. ELECTION ADMINISTRATION REQUIREMENTS.

Subtitle E--Standards for Purging Voters

SEC. 341. STANDARDS FOR PURGING VOTERS.

`SEC. 326. REMOVAL FROM VOTER REGISTRATION LIST.

Subtitle F--Election Day Registration and Early Voting

SEC. 351. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.

`SEC. 327. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION.

`SEC. 299A. ELECTION DAY REGISTRATION FORM.

SEC. 352. EARLY VOTING.

`SEC. 328. EARLY VOTING.

`SEC. 299B. STANDARDS FOR EARLY VOTING.

TITLE IV--VOTER REGISTRATION AND IDENTIFICATION

SEC. 401. VOTER REGISTRATION.

`SEC. 329. PROCESSING OF REGISTRATION APPLICATIONS.

`SEC. 299C. STANDARDS FOR MATERIAL OMISSION FROM REGISTRATION FORMS.

`SEC. 249. STUDY ON INTERNET REGISTRATION AND OTHER USES OF THE INTERNET IN FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

SEC. 402. ESTABLISHING VOTER IDENTIFICATION.

`SEC. 299D. VOTER IDENTIFICATION.

`PART 8--PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

`SEC. 298A. PAYMENTS FOR FREE PHOTO IDENTIFICATION.

`SEC. 298B. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

SEC. 403. REQUIREMENT FOR FEDERAL CERTIFICATION OF TECHNOLOGICAL SECURITY OF VOTER REGISTRATION LISTS.

TITLE V--PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES

SEC. 501. PROHIBITION ON CERTAIN CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES.

`CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES BY ELECTION OFFICIALS AND VOTING SYSTEM MANUFACTURERS
TITLE VI--ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES

SEC. 601. ENDING DECEPTIVE PRACTICES.

TITLE VII--CIVIC PARTICIPATION BY EX-OFFENDERS

SEC. 701. VOTING RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS CONVICTED OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES.

`SEC. 330. NOTIFICATION OF RESTORATION OF VOTING RIGHTS.

TITLE VIII--FEDERAL ELECTION DAY ACT

SEC. 801. SHORT TITLE.

SEC. 802. FEDERAL ELECTION DAY AS A PUBLIC HOLIDAY.

SEC. 803. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS POLL WORKERS.

`SEC. 250. STUDY ON ENCOURAGING GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES TO SERVE AS POLL WORKERS.

TITLE IX--TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS

SEC. 901. TRANSMISSION OF CERTIFICATE OF ASCERTAINMENT OF ELECTORS.

TITLE X--STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

SEC. 1001. STRENGTHENING THE ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION.

`SEC. 209. SUBMISSION OF BUDGET REQUESTS.

`SEC. 299E. TECHNICAL SUPPORT.

SEC. 1002. REPEAL OF EXEMPTION OF ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION FROM CERTAIN GOVERNMENT CONTRACTING REQUIREMENTS.

SEC. 1003. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=2533235&mesg_id=2533235

[JCMach1]

234. No... sorry the litmus test for me was the Iraq war vote

and he didn't pass the 'vision' test. We need a leader who understood, as I did, what a mistake the Iraq war would be.

I would vote for him if nominated again, but he will get no primary support from me.

[orleans]

236. no one will bother to read this post because it's too far down on the

thread, but i say fuck him!

some of these posters are saying give kerry a second chance (what crap! like he deserves another chance. what? this time he's gonna count all the votes? trust him? um...NO!)

someone else on the thread said they think kerry learned his lesson

well, he was suppose to be a pretty smart guy. with that in mind, there should not have been a lesson for him to learn. and at whose expense does he learn a lesson? the majority of the people in this country? the hundreds of dead iraqis? that expense?

if the dems have the complete ignorance to run this guy again i would stay home in the general election or vote green.

[Alexander]

237. I read it!

And I agree with just about everything you said.

Although if it's down to Hairy Kerry vs. GOP Hitler-lite in 2008, I'm voting Kerry.

I hope it never comes to that.

[yurbud]

238. I would vote for the '71 Kerry, the Iran-Contra, BCCI investigating Kerry

but not the 2004 Kerry. Did he take a dive or exercise extremely poor judgment in who he listened to or what?

And if he thought he was going to lose or didn't intend to win, why not be a straight shooter and call a spade a spade more directly about Bush? Why not humiliate him in the debates with a couple of well placed questions and quips? He easily could have said about Bush what Murtha said about Cheney, or challenge him about the smear campaign the way McCain did in 2000 during the primaries.

He could have at least made Bush sweat a little about whether he could steal the election again.

He did none of those.

[Dragonbreathp9d]

240. I'd give Kerry another chance, but not this election

Just like I'd give Gore anothe chance, but not last election. I dont think it is good to run twice like that, I just dont, plus,a lot f people didnt/dont like Kerry. I say Wes Clarke!!!!!!

[magellan]

242. No thanks.

[NobleCynic]

243. Ha!

How about no?

[lojasmo]

256. No. EOM

[aikoaiko]

257. Sure, natural born citizen, > 35 yrs, >14 yrs residency i

Thank god, he didn't use the word deserves.

[The HL]

260. NO F'ING WAY

No way he should be able to sell us down the river again for his Skull and Bones buddies.
Feingold in '08

[Individualist]

261. No

[leftofthedial]

262. I don't trust him

anymore

[Warren DeMontague]

264. 1st Choice: AL GORE. 2nd: Wes Clark. 3rd: Russ Feingold.

Kerry's on the list, but he's pretty far down. He's a good man, and I understand that he's angry and ready to fight (finally) but was a disappointment IMHO.

[mhatrw]

267. No.

Sorry.

But, please, let it be someone else.

And why isn't he waiting until after November to bring this up? Many people I know defend their support of Bush by saying "at least he's not Kerry."

[nicknameless]

268. The difference is that the candidates Kerry named actually LOST!

He won -- but caved in anyway.

He behaved as though the election was all about himself -- instead of being about the country and its citizens.
Gawd forbid anyone call him a sore loser! :eyes:

So instead, we have Alito, Roberts, Patriot Act II, the death of habeas corpus, continued NSA wiretapping, more death and destruction in Iraq, saber rattling over North Korea, and an even greater threat to Iran .......

But at least Kerry didn't have to suffer the embarrassment of being called names.


He is absolutely undeserving of a second chance.

[WI_DEM]

276. He's not my first choice but if nominated I would enthusiastically support

him.

[Dinger]

280. Of Course He Deserves A Second Chance

I really liked Kerry a lot. Is still do. BUT, he'll have to do a helluva lot to get my vote in the primary if Clark runs again. He did win in 2004 by the way.