I have a message for Senator Kerry:

[dailykoff]

Run, John, Run!

With apologies to all, this is to add my voice to the gentle chorus urging Kerry at this of all times not to fall on his sword and humbly step aside, or any other such ridiculous notion, and

RUN, DAMMIT!

Because: (1) Somebody has to stop the insane genocide underway in the Persian Gulf and I frankly don't see anyone else capable of slowing it down let alone stopping it;

(2) Secondly, somebody has to knock back the insane domestic surveillance apparatus illegally erected on the ashes of Habeas Corpus and our other former rights and I don't see anybody showing any willingness to stand up to the CIA except Kerry and lately Pelosi.

(3) Finally, somebody has to put a stop the criminal looting of the US treasury under the name of "privatization" and the great war on terra and I see no other candidate who has expressed a willingness to so much as vote against criminalizing personal bankruptcy.

It boils down to this: the only candidate who has shown even a remote interest in challenging the Bush-MIC-CIA-Oil-PNAC nexis is Kerry -- for example, he's the only senator who's so far raised serious questions about 9/11 -- and it's about time somebody ran this wretched pack of jackals out of Washington.


LOOK! LOOK! SEE JOHN RUN!

[rockymountaindem]

1. Put your flame retardant suit on

But I wholeheartedly agree.

[dailykoff]

4. Buttoned to the chin!

:hippie:

[WI_DEM]

2. he's a good man and he had a chance in '04 and I think we should

look elsewhere in '08. He certainly can do alot of constructive work in the Senate. That said if he does run and is nominated he will have my support.

[fedupinBushcountry]

12. A lot of things have changed since '04

and Senator Kerry, has always been on top of all of the issues. Also if you say he had his chance , there are quite a few others whom have had their chance too, so I say Run, John, Run.

[Imagevision]

74. Support Kerry? compared to who? John Edwards Hillary & Bill, Barack Obama...

Personally, I don't like the idea of having another "Bonesman" for a president, but I will tip my hat to Mr. Kerry for trying to expose Iran/Contra for what it really was.

[Mass]

3. I am with you on this!

I am tired of people telling me who I should support! I want him to run!

He has something to bring to the discussion and he should make his voice heard.

Too bad if the Inside the Beltway crowd does not like that.

[ray of light]

5. who is inside the beltway? DC or midAmeria? I always confuse that.

[dailykoff]

14. DC lobbyists and such

I forget exactly where the term comes from but I'll look it up ...

Here we go:

Interstate 495 (abbreviated I-495) is a freeway-class interstate highway which circles Washington, D.C. and its inner suburbs in Maryland and Virginia. I-495 is widely known as the Capital Beltway or simply as the Beltway, especially when the context of Washington, D.C., is clear. It is the basis of the phrase "inside the Beltway", used when referring to issues dealing with American government and politics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_Beltway

good ol' wiki! :)

[dailykoff]

7. Bingo! the Beltway crowd does NOT like Kerry.

He scares the hell out of them because he's not on anybody's payroll, which is another damn good reason to support him!

p.s. thanks Mass! :hi:

[CarbonDate]

185. Where in the world do you get that idea?

I seem to recall Terry McAuliffe saying on February 1, 2004, while the primaries were still in full swing, "I look forward to that debate when John Kerry, a war hero, with a chest full of medals, is standing next to George Bush, a man who was AWOL in the Alabama National Guard." Kerry had only won Iowa and New Hampshire at that point; he didn't have it sewn up.

Look, there are plenty of things to admire about John Kerry, and I think he would have made a fine President. But this latest talking point from the Kerry backers that he's some sort of Beltway outsider is just weird and border-line Orwellian. He was *the* Beltway choice for the Democratic nomination in 2004. And he lost. Against the worst President ever.

[dailykoff]

186. "Sen. Hillary Clinton moves to limit associated Kerry damage,

calls Kerry's 'joke' 'inappropriate'."

http://www.evote.com/?q=node/5094&print

Does it get more inside-the-beltway than Hillary?

[LittleClarkie]

6. I'll support him if he does

Just waiting to hear.

[dailykoff]

13. Let's not wait!

Let's make it perfectly clear to him that he doesn't have a choice, if you get my drift!

I know it's his decision but to come all this way and then give up because of the noise machine would be an shame shame and a terrible waste!

Don't you agree?

[LittleClarkie]

15. Alrighty then

RUN, JOHN, RUN!

[dailykoff]

17. I think we need to organize a letter blitz

Somebody posted an article about Teddy saying things are very moving fast now that Bayh is out and Edwards is in... so Kerry might be deciding withing the next 48 hours... did you see that?

[LittleClarkie]

45. I saw it. Maybe a phone campaign might be easier to organize quickly

Call the Senator's office, maybe?

[dailykoff]

65. You know that's a great idea!

I'll look up the numbers!

p.s. has anyone ever replied to one of those mass-emails he sends out?

[LittleClarkie]

72. I guess some have. But I'd be afraid that it was only a bot recieving them

and not an actual human being.

[dailykoff]

75. Yeah phoning sounds best.... still waiting for his site to load...

guess he's popular tonight!

p.s. my latest email has this return adress:

[e-mail]

and this address:

Friends of John Kerry, Inc., 511 C St. NE, Washington DC, 20002, U.S.A.

but no phone #. johnkerry.com still loading...

[dailykoff]

76. OK here's his campaign office number: 202-464-2136

From http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/ :

Contact Us

Friends of John Kerry, Inc.

511 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002

202-464-2136

[dailykoff]

78. And here's his Senate office number: [phone]

from: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/office.html

Office Information
Contact John
Office Information
E-mail John
John's Newsletter
Washington D.C.
304 Russell Bldg.
Third Floor
Washington D.C. 20510

[phone] - Phone

[phone] - Fax

[wisteria]

55. Oh, I agree.How do we let him know our feelings?n/t

[dailykoff]

68. How about a phone campaign?

Where we call his office and urge that he throw his hat it?

It might be the quickest way to reach him.

[JanusAscending]

137. Hey y'all, I already asked him!

I made my plea when I signed his Birthday Card, along with a "smiley face" that said PLEASE!!! DC:hi:

[dailykoff]

150. That's perfect!

And I love your avatar! :hi:


p.s. I realized last night that there's a certain amount of delicacy required in making such a request directly, but then I decided that under the circumstances a temporary suspension of delicacy is in order, and I just made it. :)

[JanusAscending]

161. Thank you,

I love my avitar too!! I love this thread of your's as well!! Delicacy be damned!! He's not that French, and it is a matter of LIFE AND DEATH for our country!! So RUN JOHN (damn it!!!):bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :loveya:

[dailykoff]

162. I think that sums it up nicely.

And that's pretty much what I said last night in an e-mail message I sent to his Senate office.

The funny thing was that "2008" isn't even one of the 25 or so topics in the drop-down topic list!

[Democrafty]

8. w00000000000000000t!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks for knowing The Big Guy's record when it comes to investigating and fighting corruption. Seriously. John Kerry will save us if we let him.

[jgraz]

20. "John Kerry will save us if we let him."

I don't know if you meant it this way, but expressions like this tend to make me a little bit nervous. ANY Dem who gets elected will only save us if we make them.

Nobody should have blind faith in their leadership. The unwillingness of many people to acknowledge Kerry's faults make it less likely that he'll choose to lead on the off chance that he gets elected.

[karynnj]

33. So, I assume you were there to tell him:

- to oppose the paranoid Nixon known for his enemies list

- to investigate whether the Reagan was funding the Contra - against the Boland amendment - by allowing gun running and bringing cocaine into this country. Kerry was the only Senator willing to investigate. It was true - and I assume it destoyed many lives here and in Central America

- To continute investigating BCCI, the corrupt terrorist bank that bought off enough people in the Democratic and Republican party that they thought they would never be investigated. Kerry ignored Jackie Onassis and Jimmy Carter asking him to stop as "friends" could be hurt. Is this political?

I think that with any leader we need to keep informed. In fact, I think that Democrats as a whole blew it when they accepted in the Clinton years things they would have protested with a Republican in power. I do think that based on his stated values, John Kerry would run a more open administration than others and I do trust that he would be honest - because he genuinely seems to not lie - even when it would help him.

[jgraz]

39. Exactly -- Clinton is the classic example

We can't afford another Rethug-lite President. Whoever is elected, we need to work hard to pull them toward the progressive cause. Fighting corruption is just one part of that.

[karynnj]

121. My point is that in Kerry you have someone who

works hard to do what he thinks is right. The difference between him and Clinton is enmormous and can easily be seen in Clinto's advise to Kerry to endorse all the gay bashing amendments, which Kerry immediately said no to.

[BeFree]

42. He was elected

But the election was stolen, and the people lost.

You do know that, right?

[jgraz]

70. He was elected, the election was stolen

And he gave up and crawled back to the Senate with his tail between his legs.

You do know that don't you?

[BeFree]

101. No

He looked around and saw he had no support from the elite dems. No help whatsoever, except from the underground.

Heck, most of America would have called him a sore-loser, had he rebeled.

He stands to fight another day, and with your undying support he will Kerry the day, now that we've cracked the vote machine code. Glad to see that you are coming over to our side because in order to defeat bushco we all need to work together, ya know, teamwork.

[jgraz]

102. "He stands to fight another day"

Too bad the 1800 GIs who've died since he conceded aren't able to do the same. But, hey, at least nobody called Kerry a sore loser.

[BeFree]

103. That's low

See, this is where you go off the deep end, trying to pin those deaths on Kerry because bushco stole the election.

Ya know, I've been pretty much daily involved in the election theft fiasco, and recall many DUers who have stood and fought the theft, but I am having trouble recalling your name, jgraz, being amongst those many patriots.

Maybe your casting at Kerry is merely a reflection of your previous disabilty to effect election theft change?

[jgraz]

105. I'm not the one bringing in the war metaphors to support their candidate

Kerry put his political career ahead of those soldiers' lives. And that was the second time he did so, the first being the vote for the IWR.

[BeFree]

106. Awww

Go fly a kite. You're no fun, and the tired repititions under your name are trite.

[jgraz]

107. That's what the ignore button is for

By all means use it. You'll find it's much easier than trying to come up with rational arguments.

[_dynamicdems]

165. AMEN! n/t

[_dynamicdems]

163. That's disgusting and totally twisted. n/t

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

148. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Patchuli]

140. He let us down before, the stakes are higher now

I don't think I can trust him. Today, Kerry's campaign people called looking for money. I said I can't support Mr. Kerry again.

I want to see Al Gore run and win, again.

[_dynamicdems]

166. He didn't let us down. He was let down.

The ambitions of those whom a Kerry candidacy in 2008 would most threaten are the ones who worked hardest in 2004 to make certain that there would be no President Kerry. Are these really the people you want to see take power in Washington, by default, because you can't forgive someone for not winning the first time?

You do know that Kerry was pretty much fed to the wolves in 2004, don't you? If not, do some googling and you will find many, many examples of this, left-wing hit pieces written while we were all working our asses off for Kerry. We were working and they were attacking with a million paper cuts that virtually shredded his campaign. Sure it wasn't the best campaign. That's no crime. Nobody knows how difficult it is to run for President of the United States, until they have experienced it. (Gore ran for President more times than Kerry, had 8 years as VP and his campaign still made mistakes.) The crime is that our Democratic nominee, running against the worst President ever, was undermined by his own side for nothing more than naked ambition. That is criminal and I'm directing MY anger toward the people who really deserve it.

I'm seeing good people already squeezed out of the 2008 race. They see the handwriting on the wall and they are backing off. This is fundamentally wrong.

I want Kerry to run. Gore would be my second choice. Both are good men and either would make a terrific President. The reason I prefer Kerry is because of his behavior after the election and also because I line up with his political viewpoints a bit more closely than with Gore's. Kerry fought like a tiger (far beyond his role as Senator called for) for us and for Democrats running in the midterms. I'm also happy that he's active on all issues from Iraq to health care to the environment to civil rights and more.

John Kerry has also learned from his experience in 2004. Remember this was Kerry's FIRST run for President. He won the primary, which is a Hell of a lot closer than others have come who are now running again and doing so without the criticism Kerry is getting for not winning the general election. That just doesn't make sense to me. In a horse race, a horse who lost by a nose or in a photo finish is considered a future contender but the also-rans are only considered for small claiming races, put out to pasture or sent to the glue factory.

[wildflowergardener]

9. Running

I agree -

I think anyone who wants to run should.

If you don't want them to win in the primary - don't vote for them.

Meg

[Firespirit]

10. Agreed 100%

It is a travesty that not enough people realize what potential he has.

Yes, he can do a lot of good in the Senate. Now just imagine what he could do in the White House.

[Blaukraut]

11. I second that request n/t

[jgraz]

16. Why wouldn't Gore, Edwards, Clark, Obama or Kucinich do just as well as Kerry in these areas?

Whether Kerry should run is a point of debate. Whether he'd be the best candidate is another valid point of debate. Saying that no one else could do the job is nonsense.

We're lucky enough this cycle to have a number of great potential candidates. Any one of them would make a pretty good President. Kerry's not my favorite, but I think he'd do a reasonable job on the points you mentioned -- as would Clark or Gore. Or Edwards or Obama (maybe). Or Kucinich (sadly, probably not).

[dailykoff]

22. I think they're all great, BUT:

I don't think Gore's judgement with respect to Iraq is very good. For example he chose Lieberman as his veep, which I don't blame him for but does not betoken a great concern for peace.

What kind of foreign policy experience does Edwards have?

Clark is a military guy, a fine one, but we don't need any more military solutions.

Obama is a bit of a cipher and I think he voted for the bankruptcy bill. I also mistrust that he's the anti-Kerry du jour beloved of media pundits.

Kucinich would make a terrific veep and I'd gladly back him as pres if he had a hope in hell.

In fact I think they'd all make excellent veeps.

[jgraz]

32. Hmmm...

"I don't think Gore's judgement with respect to Iraq is very good. For example he chose Lieberman as his veep, which I don't blame him for but does not betoken a great concern for peace."

We both know the Lieberman choice was more about gaining distance from Clinton than anything. Besides, I think we need to see how this new Gore, v2.0 acts should he run. This isn't the same guy I held my nose to vote for in 2000.


"What kind of foreign policy experience does Edwards have?"

Well, he voted for the IWR...not a stellar record. He really needs to make the case on this.


"Clark is a military guy, a fine one, but we don't need any more military solutions."

Agree on the military solutions, but I'm pretty sure Clark understands that. I'm gonna pay close attention to what he says.


"Obama is a bit of a cipher and I think he voted for the bankruptcy bill. I also mistrust that he's the anti-Kerry du jour beloved of media pundits."

If he did vote for that bill then fuck him. I honestly haven't been paying attention to him at all.


"Kucinich would make a terrific veep and I'd gladly back him as pres if he had a hope in hell."

Sadly, he'd be my first choice, just like many progressive dems. What does it say about our political system that the choice of so many people doesn't have a chance in hell?


"In fact I think they'd all make excellent veeps."

Can we just run a veep candidate? I'm pretty sure we could win that. ;)

[beachmom]

77. Obama voted for the tort reform bill and against the bankruptcy bill

However, he voted down an amendment to the bankruptcy bill which would have limited the interest rate on credit cards to 30%. He received donations from Financial Industry interests. Although he voted against the bankruptcy bill, he knew darn well that it would pass and be more draconian without that amendment that would have softened it.

Anyway, just wanted to get the facts out there.

[dailykoff]

95. Thanks beachmom

I knew it was something tricky like that, and that was tricky. I've seen many legislators pull it.

[Warren DeMontague]

139. GORE's Judgement regarding Iraq isn't good? Where has Gore been on the war from day one?

Sorry, the albatross that was hung around Kerry's neck in 2004 is the same one that would be used in 2008: He was for the war before he was against it. Al Gore doesn't have that problem- he's been concise and clear on Iraq from the get-go (one of the reasons he backed Howard Dean in 2004)

...

While I agree that Lieberman wasn't the best pick for the ticket, you can't use Iraq as an argument to second-guess Gore's choice of running mate in 2000... before 9-11 and well before Iraq. It was a different time, and the choice of Lieberman had more to do with trying to defuse griping about Clinton's blowjob than anything else. To judge the choice of Lieberman in 2000 through the lens of the Iraq war is absurd.

Kerry's IWR vote indicates a problem with his Judgment on Iraq; Gore's record on Iraq is solid and unchallengeable.

[blm]

24. Well, everyone chooses their niches, and Kerry's has always been about exposing

the corruption behind government actions and about getting us OUT of wars that prove to be wrong and about opening the government books to the average citizen.

[dailykoff]

36. Exactly!

This is such an important point blm I wish everyone could hear it!

REPEATEDLY! :)

[babylonsister]

18. I'm with you, too - run, John, run! nt

[quinnox]

19. Time for someone new

Kerry has foot in mouth disease. Sure he can run if he wants but I don't think he will do well, won't win the nomination.

[dailykoff]

25. Fine, who????

What "fresh face" is going to avoid getting steamrolled over some ex-wife, ex-mistress, undocumented nanny or who knows what else?

:shrug:

[quinnox]

27. Let's see what the field is

I'm sure there will be one or two surprises in there.

[dailykoff]

29. Well, there's only so many senators and governors.

Did you have anyone in mind? C'mon, you can tell us. :eyes:

[jgraz]

35. you make a great case against front-loading the primaries

I'd be very happy if we waited until May or June (or even the Convention) to name our nominee.

[dailykoff]

38. Yes, I suppose that might help.

But they'd just get sliced to ribbons after the convention, like Kerry did after his. :shrug:

[jgraz]

41. My belief is that we need to slice back

That's my concern about Kerry. We need someone who can verbally pulverize their opponents. I've seen Gore do it, and Edwards. If Kerry runs, I'll be watching to see if he learned anything from 2004.

[dailykoff]

44. I think what he needs is a fixer.

Somebody to run the war room and handle the mud, kind of like what Carville supposedly did for Bill in '92.

[jgraz]

Please tell me you don't mean *exactly* like Carville

:scared:

[dailykoff]

49. LOL, I mean NOTHING like Carville.

Somebody who likes wrestling in the mud pit is I guess what I mean.

[karynnj]

170. You've seen Edwards do it?

The traditional role of the VP nominee is to be the bull dog, allowing the Presidential candidate to be Presidential and above the nastiness.

Edwards didn't do this. The time when I thought he did the worst was when he was in places like West Virginia where the Republican party ITSELF had put out literature that Kerry/Edwards would take their Bibles away - I waited to hear an emotional appeal from Edwards, who made his career on emotional appeals to juries, to come out clear and strong on this. This could have been done staying on the high ground.

[ginnyinWI]

56. that's a very good point

Kerry's already been through that meat-grinder. There is less that they can dream up to smear him with, and besides that he's now experienced at running for prez and will do it even better a second time. This is one man who learns.

I also think that the last person the media wants as a candidate is John Kerry, because they won't have such an easy time covering an already house-hold name.

[ginnyinWI]

59. I wonder how many people now wish they'd voted for him in 2004

And I wonder whether they'd like a chance to correct that particular mistake.

[_dynamicdems]

168. He actually makes less verbal faux pas than most.

He's scrutinized more closely than most are though. Biden and Clinton have made horrible statements and the media and the right have largely ignored them. Just a tiny blip. But Kerry can say it is 12:02 and he will be attacked relentlessly because it is actually 12:01.

What we should be questioning is why is Kerry such a threat that he has to be taken down at any cost. There are those in Washington that don't want someone like Kerry in power and they are on both sides of the political spectrum. He's always been someone who can't be controlled and who will do what he believes. He doesn't play ball and he is completely anti-corruption.

Think about it: would there have been such a sh*t storm if any other Democrat had made the exact same joke, leaving out that single pronoun, as Kerry did? I doubt it would have even been reported on.

[karynnj]

172. Great points

I agree that it would have been ignored as a simple misstatement by any other candidate. I do wonder who will have the vote of Democratic veterans. I have seen no conjecture or polls. I read Kerry did well with them in 2004 during the primaries.

[Island Blue]

21. I'm with you on this one!

K & R.

[dailykoff]

31. Thanks Blue!

:hi:

[ProSense]

23. Great post! Thanks! n/t

[dailykoff]

40. Thanks ProSense!

That's a great compliment coming from one of John's best advocates!

[rox63]

26. K-and-friggin-R!

And I'll throw in a couple of Amens while I'm at it. :bounce:

[dailykoff]

34. Thanks rox!

:hi:

[Martin Eden]

28. If Kerry wants to be president, he should run.

Kerry is highly qualified and would enhance the Democratic field. I'd like to see Gore, Feingold, Hillary, and Obama run as well. They're all better than McCain, Guiliani, Romney, et al. Let's have a spirited, enlightened debate among the Democratic challengers that will shame the rethugs by comparison.

Of those I mentioned, Kerry would be at best my 3rd choice in the Democratic primary, but I would certainly work for him in the general election like I did in 2004.

I like Edwards, but I think Kerry is much better qualified. I love Dennis (and voted for him in the 2004 primary) but he doesn't have a remote chance.

[globalvillage]

30. Run, John, Run!

I'm sick to death of the media and others deciding who is and who isn't viable.
Run John, Wes, Hillary, Barak, John, Al and whoever else can manage to get enough supporters who believe you're the best person to lead the country, and let the people decide.

I've already decided, and I'm with you.

Kerry '08!

[DoBotherMe]

37. Run, John, Run!

hell yeah!

[originalpckelly]

43. I agree, run John run, run as far as possible away from microphones and video cameras!

We can't take another hit from you Frankenkerry!

Run away from politics, for the love of GOD!

[dailykoff]

46. I was wondering when you guys were going to show up.

We missed you.

[jgraz]

47. Just stay away from Presidential politics

I think the dude was born to be a Senator. Leave him where he's best.

[Mass]

51. Great - The first Kerry basher.

Until now, the people who do not support Kerry have done so without resorting to bashing. So congratulations! You are the first one!

:toast:

[originalpckelly]

61. I actually want to vote for someone I like...

someone who's inspirational, and Kerry falls very short of that. He has the most awkward body language of any politician, it's the body language equivalent of George W. Bush. Pathetic.

He also voted for the Iraq War Resolution, and just like any other Democrat who caved to the political pressure, I cannot forgive him. No one can or should be forgiven for voting for a war where people die based on politics.

And finally, I don't think he'll be able to understand the lives of ordinary Americans, he's always been rich.

That's plain and simple truth. I'd be voting more against the Republican than for Kerry.

[Mass]

69. So dont support him. Other will support him, so he should try to run.

The people will speak.

I disagree on many points, particularly the body language issue and the fact that he can understand the life of ordinary Americans. I am not sure who you will be supporting, but, short of Dennis Kucinich, I do not think there is anybody in the list who can. Edwards may have at some point, but as far as I can see he has forgotten. The other ones lived more or less the same type of life as Kerry did when he was younger.

As for the IWR, while I disagree with his vote, I cannot make that a single-issue any more than I would do the same thing for Kucinich opposing choice in the past.

So what you said may be your opinion, it is not necessarily plain and simple truth.

[originalpckelly]

79. How is it possible for someone to know what it's like to be poor...

if they've only seen bounty in their lives?

I'm sick and tired of the rich people ruling this damn country, and I'm not a communist or socialist.

And quite frankly, it's pretty damn easy to turn back and say "aw shucks I should've voted against the war" when it is popular to be against the war. Where was he in 2002? Oh wait, he voted for the fucking thing!

I'm sick and tired of weaselly politicians trying to pull one over on the American people!

He's no better than Gordon Smith, only Kerry managed to beat old Gordy to the punch by a year or so.

Kerry had a chance in '04 to be unequivocally against the Iraq war. He didn't stand up then either.

And it isn't as if it was impossible for Senator Kerry to understand there would be failure in Iraq, because he voted against the 1990-91 Persian Gulf War, citing the problems we are now facing in Iraq. Had he listened to the various experts whom predicted failure, or the thousands and thousands of protesters, he would have voted against the war. It's not even clear if he read the NIE on Iraq, because if he had, the shallow and flimsy arguments for war would have been obvious.

I'm sorry, but it looks like another politician was trying to CYA, only this time it involved the real security of America and the entire ME. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have died in part because of Senator Kerry's vote on Iraq, and he ought to be completely ashamed of that. As should any other sorry sap who voted for this war.

[sandnsea]

84. So do I

I don't like Hillary, she's a self-absorbed opportunist. I don't like Edwards, he's plastic and shallow and there's not much under the 'optimistic' smile. I don't like Clark, he's been a little too happy to stay in Iraq and he tends to ramble in Q&A settings. Gore's okay, but he's still got his condescending kindergarten teacher problem. None of them would inspire me to walk across the street. Hillary and Edwards did more than vote for the IWR, they actually supported going to war. Clark and Gore made a lot of statements about Saddam's WMD, and have never taken an ounce of responsibility for it. I'd be voting more againt the Republican than for any of them, if any of them become the candidate.

See. Anybody can come up with a bunch of lame excuses to not like someone.

[originalpckelly]

87. Yeah, we all know that sending people to die for politics is such a lame excuse...

Don't you have a little bit of a problem with someone doing that?

[sandnsea]

104. Like Hillary and Edwards?

Yeah, I have a problem with that. I also have a problem with people who recommend a course of action that includes the threat of force, and then don't have the honorability to admit it, like Clark. Or people who said we needed to pass a resolution to deal with Saddam and his pursuit of WMD, and now pretend they have no responsibility for the path to war at all, like Gore.

So unless you're talking about Dennis Kucinich, there isn't anybody who didn't play a role in this war, and even fewer who have taken full responsibility for the role they did take.

[originalpckelly]

118. Obama and maybe Bill Richardson...

Dennis Kucinich was right, but he has no chance in hell of winning. He's very interesting, but again not as inspiring.

The only other two are Obama, I know he was against it, and then Richardson, and that's only because I don't know his position.

Other than that, there aren't many people out there whom can do it.

[FrenchieCat]

147. So Wes Clark who "honorably" defended John Kerry against Swiftboaters

is not "honorable" enough! Figures! :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

146. Yes, Clark made a lot of statements about WMD.......that is true!

USA Today editorial from September 9, 2002, in which Clark wrote:
Despite all of the talk of "loose nukes," Saddam doesn't have any, or, apparently, the highly enriched uranium or plutonium to enable him to construct them. Unless there is new evidence, we appear to have months, if not years, to work out this problem.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2002-09-09-oplede_x.htm

Clark's September 26, 2002 testimony to the Armed Services Committee, in which he stated:
The resolution need not at this point authorize the use of force, but simply agree on the intent to authorize the use of force, if other measures fail......in the near term, time is on our side , (See chapter that quotes Clark titled: The Post War Planning Failure) at the link here:
http://www.tacitus.org/user/Armando/diary/2

In his Op-Ed dated October 10, 2002, "Let's Wait to Attack." Clark states:
In the near term, time is on our side. Saddam has no nuclear weapons today, as far as we know, and probably won't gain them in the next few months.
http://edition.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/timep.iraq.viewpoints.tm/
Sept. 26, 2002

CLARK: Well, if I could answer and talk about why time is on our side in the near term, first because we have the preponderance of force in this region. There's no question what the outcome of a conflict would be. Saddam Hussein so far as we know does not have nuclear weapons. Even if there was a catastrophic breakdown in the sanctions regime and somehow he got nuclear materials right now, he wouldn't have nuclear weapons in any zable quantity for, at best, a year, maybe two years.

So, we have the time to build up the force, work the diplomacy, achieve the leverage before he can come up with any military alternative that's significant enough ultimately to block us, and so that's why I say time is on our side in the near term. In the long term, no, and we don't know what the long term is. Maybe it's five years. Maybe it's four years. Maybe it's eight years. We don't know.

I would say it would depend on whether we've exhausted all other possibilities and it's difficult. I don't want to draw a line and say, you know, this kind of inspection, if it's 100 inspectors that's enough. I think we've got to have done everything we can do given the time that's available to us before we ask the men and women in uniform, whom you know so well (inaudible).
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-092602.htm#WC

We don't want a bunch of young men in battle dress uniforms out there indefinitely trying to perform humanitarian assistance. That's not our job. We're not very good at it. We're also not any good at police work. Now we're doing a lot of it in place like Kosovo and Bosnia and we have and it's been unfortunate. So we should try to do better in this case.

I think you know with the value of hindsight what you realize is that there are many, you know, ifs, would-haves, and buts in situations like this. The question before the United States of America is whether we think our intelligence system is so faulty and our lack of information so gross that we would feel the need to rush to a military solution before we've taken the time to adequately build up the diplomatic and full military support capabilities that will assure we get a more favorable outcome. And, you know, it's a question of where the weight of the evidence is.

I no longer have access to the information this committee has. You may have information I have not seen, but based on the evidence submitted publicly and my experience over many years of looking at classified information, I would say the balance comes down on time is on our side in the near term. We don't know precisely how long that is and we don't know exactly where we'll draw the line on that risk.
-----------
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/us/hearingspreparedstatements/hasc-clark-092602.htm

---------
same testimony 9/26/02:

Since then, we've encouraged Saddam Hussein and supported him as he attacked against Iran in an effort to prevent Iranian destabilization of the Gulf. That came back and bit us when Saddam Hussein then moved against Kuwait. We encouraged the Saudis and the Pakistanis to work with the Afghans and build an army of God, the mujahaddin, to oppose the Soviets in Afghanistan. Now we have released tens of thousands of these Holy warriors, some of whom have turned against us and formed Al Qaida.

My French friends constantly remind me that these are problems that we had a hand in creating. So when it comes to creating another strategy, which is built around the intrusion into the region by U.S. forces, all the warning signs should be flashing.

There are unintended consequences when force is used. Use it as a last resort. Use it multilaterally if you can. Use it unilaterally only if you must.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2035350&mesg_id=2036557

10/10/02: Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq
www.umb.edu/news/2002news/reporter/november/iraq.html
University of Massachusetts at Boston
Retired General Reflects on United States’ Policy Towards Iraq (October 10, 2002)

By Michael McPhee

Wesley K. Clark, retired general of the US Army, was the distinguished guest of the John W. McCormack Institute of Public Affairs on October 10. Over seventy-five people came to hear the former Supreme Allied Commander of Europe discuss his reflections on the US policy towards Iraq.

Edmund Beard, director of the McCormack Institute, introduced Clark and gave an account of the general’s impressive military career, which includes command at every level from company to division. Clark is both a soldier and scholar, graduating first in his 1966 class of the United States Military Academy at West Point and holding a master’s degree in philosophy, politics, and economics from Oxford University, where he studied as a Rhodes Scholar.

Clark, who was the NATO commander in charge of the effort to stop the crisis in Kosovo in 1999, spoke of his experiences in Bosnia, where he learned first-hand about the chaos of unleashed ethnic hatreds. It is exactly this chaos that has led Clark to raise a voice of concern over possible conflict with Iraq. Clark believes that a military war with Iraq could be over in as little as two weeks. He is concerned with the lack of a long-range plan for the chaos that would ensue among the Kurds, Shiites, and those factions loyal to Saddam Hussein, which Clark believes would play out on a much larger scale than what took place in Bosnia.
snip
In comparing the two most recent presidencies, Clark described the Clinton administration as pursuing a foreign policy of engagement and reaching out as opposed to the Bush administration’s preemption policy and striking out.

Clark, when asked where the push to invade Iraq was coming from, rejected the idea that it was the military that wanted to go to war. He blamed civilian advisors to President Bush who were pushing in that direction.

Clark stated his view that terrorism is the problem, not Iraq. He also voiced concern that Americans not blame Islam, and spoke of his belief that US interests are best served in reaching out to those who do not embrace the ideals of radical Islam.

Gene Lyons interview on Wes Clark with Buzzflash-

Going all the way back to the summer of 2002, I got a sense of how strong his feelings about Iraq were. Long before it was clear that the administration was really going to sell a war on Iraq, when it was just a kind of a Republican talking point, early in the summer of 2002, Wesley Clark was very strongly opposed to it. He thought it was definitely the wrong move. He conveyed that we'd be opening a Pandora's box that we might never get closed again. And he expressed that feeling to me, in a sort of quasi-public way. It was a Fourth of July party and a lot of journalists were there, and there were people listening to a small group of us talk. There wasn't an audience, there were just several people around. There was no criticism I could make that he didn't sort of see me and raise me in poker terms. Probably because he knew a lot more about it than I did. And his experience is vast, and his concerns were deep.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/10/int03221.html

On August 29, 2002, Clark said regarding a proposed invasion of Iraq, "Well, taking it to the United Nations doesn't put America's foreign policy into the hands of the French. What you have to do as the United States is you have to get other nations to commit and come in with you, and so you've got to provide the evidence, and the convincing of the French and the French public, and the leadership elite. Look, there's a war fever out there right now in some quarters of some of the leadership elements in this country, apparently, because I keep hearing this sense of urgency and so forth. Where is that coming from? The vice president said that today he doesn't know when they're going to get nuclear weapons. They've been trying to get nuclear weapons for -- for 20 years.So if there's some smoking gun, if there's some really key piece of information that hasn't been shared publicly, maybe they can share it with the French." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq and its aftermath, "I think -- but I think that underneath, what you're going to have is you're going to have more boiling in the street. You're going to have deeper anger and you're going to feed the recruitment efforts of Al Qaeda. And this is the key point, I think, that we're at here. The question is what's the greater threat? Three thousand dead in the World Trade Center and the Pentagon underscore the fact that the threat we're facing primarily is Al Qaeda. We have to work the Iraq problem around dealing with Al Qaeda. And the key thing about dealing with Al Qaeda is, we can't win that war alone." CNN, 8/29/02

On August 29, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "My perspective would be I'd like to see us slow down the rush to go after Saddam Hussein unless there's some clear convincing evidence that we haven't had shared with the public that he's right on the verge of getting nuclear weapons. CNN, 8/29/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "Going after Iraq right now is at best a diversion, and at worst it risks the possibility of strengthening Al Qaeda and undercutting our coalition at a critical time. So at the strategic level, I think we have to keep our eye on the ball and focus on the number one strategic priority. There are a lot of other concerns as well, but that's the main one." CNN, 8/30/02

On August 30, 2002, Clark said, regarding a possible invasion of Iraq, "It seems that way to me. It seems that this would supercharge the opinion, not necessarily of the elites in the Arab world, who may bow to the inevitability of the United States and its power, but the radical groups in the Middle East, who are looking for reasons and gaining more recruits every time the United States makes a unilateral move by force. They will gain strength from something like this. We can well end up in Iraq with thousands of military forces tied down, and a worse problem in coping with a war on terror here in the United States or Europe, or elsewhere around the world." CNN, 8/30/02

September 16, 2002:
Clark said Congress shouldn't give a "blank check," to Use Force Against Iraq.

On September 16, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization to use force, "Don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation?" CNN 9/16/02

WOODRUFF: How much difference does it make, the wording of these resolution or resolutions that Congress would pass in terms of what the president is able to do after?

CLARK: I think it does make a difference because I think that Congress, the American people's representatives, can specify what it is they hope that the country will stand for and what it will do.

So I think the -- what people say is, don't give a blank check. Don't just say, you are authorized to use force. Say what the objectives are. Say what the limitations are, say what the constraints and restraints are. What is it that we, the United States of America, hope to accomplish in this operation.

And I think that the support will be stronger and it will be more reliable and more consistent if we are able to put the specifics into the resolution.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0209/16/ip.00.html

On September 23, 2002, Clark said, regarding Iraq and possible Congressional authorization for the use of force, "When you're talking about American men and women going and facing the risk we've been talking about this afternoon... you want to be sure that you're using force and expending American blood and lives in treasure as the ultimate last resort. Not because of a sense of impatience with the arcane ways of international institutions." Senate Committee on Armed Forces 9/23/02
http://armedservices.house.gov/openingstatementsandpressreleases/107thcongress/02-09-26clark.html

On October 5, 2002, Clark said, regarding debate on Congressional authorization for war against Iraq, "The way the debate has emerged, it's appeared as though to the American people, at least to many that talk to me, as though the administration jumped to the conclusion that it wanted war first and then the diplomacy has followed." CNN 10/5/02

On January 23, 2003, Clark said, regarding the case the United States had made for war against Iraq to the United Nations, "There are problems with the case that the U.S. is making, because the U.S. hasn't presented publicly the clear, overwhelming sense of urgency to galvanize the world community to immediate military action now."CNN 1/23/03

All CNN quotes located here.... http://www.clark04.com/faq/iraq.html

-----------
There were some of our prominent leaders who chose to listen to the wise words of Wes Clark, and reacted the better for it!

Here's is Ted Kennedy on Larry King pretty recently....

KING: Why did you vote against?

KENNEDY: Well, I'm on the Armed Services Committee and I was inclined to support the administration when we started the hearings in the Armed Services Committee. And, it was enormously interesting to me that those that had been -- that were in the armed forces that had served in combat were universally opposed to going.

I mean we had Wes Clark testify in opposition to going to war at that time. You had General Zinni. You had General (INAUDIBLE). You had General Nash. You had the series of different military officials, a number of whom had been involved in the Gulf I War, others involved in Kosovo and had distinguished records in Vietnam, battle-hardened combat military figures. And, virtually all of them said no, this is not going to work and they virtually identified...

KING: And that's what moved you?

KENNEDY: And that really was -- influenced me to the greatest degree. And the second point that influenced me was in the time that we were having the briefings and these were classified. They've been declassified now. Secretary Rumsfeld came up and said "There are weapons of mass destruction north, south, east and west of Baghdad." This was his testimony in the Armed Services Committee.

And at that time Senator Levin, who is an enormously gifted, talented member of the Armed Services Committee said, "Well, we're now providing this information to the inspectors aren't we?" This is just before the war. "Oh, yes, we're providing that." "But are they finding anything?" "No."
snip
There were probably eight Senators on the Friday before the Thursday we voted on it. It got up to 23. I think if that had gone on another -- we had waited another ten days, I think you may have had a different story.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0604/20/lkl.01.html

and Sen. Levin, who showed up with Clark at a WesPAC fundraiser a few months ago....here's what he said on the floor of the Senate BEFORE THE IWR VOTE when he submitted his own resolution THAT WASN'T A BLANK CHECK...:

"General Clark, the former NATO Supreme Allied Commander, who testified at the same hearing, echoed the views of General Shalikashvili and added "we need to be certain we really are working through the United Nations in an effort to strengthen the institution in this process and not simply checking a block."
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/10.05B.levin.dont.p.htm

and the late great Sen. Paul Wellstone–
“As General Wes Clark, former Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in Europe has recently noted, a premature go-it-alone invasion of Iraq "would super-charge recruiting for Al Qaida." http://www.wellstone.org/news/news_detail.aspx?itemID=2778&catID=298

[sendero]

164. Those are pretty good..

... except I've never heard Clark ramble.

As for the rest of those criticisms, they all have a certain amount of validity to me.

[Island Blue]

115. Does this look like a man with awkward body language

who can't connect with ordinary people?

[originalpckelly]

119. Well, I watched the debates and his convention speech...

and a ton of others, and to me he always seemed uptight. I'm sorry, but I'm being honest. But I must admit, I might be able to get over than, because admittedly it is superficial, however on issues of substance he was wrong on Iraq.

[_dynamicdems]

169. And how would you have a President of the United States act?

Kerry is professional and sincere. He's serious when he's talking about serious issues. I think the state of the world IS something to be a little uptight about.

[originalpckelly]

187. No, there's a difference between uptight and formal. Bill Clinton...

and Jimmy Carter both have formal and serious attitudes, but they are not at all uptight.

[jgraz]

123. No, but in that 4th picture his hand is freakishly large

I'm guessing that scared away a few voters.

[Vektor]

159. Or attracted a few.

:smoke:

[karynnj]

173. You can't be serious

It is the photo that distorts the size of the hand as it is closer to the camera than the area the camera is focused on. I met and shook hands with the Senator along with a group of 42 friends and can assure you that no one was scared by him.

[JanusAscending]

143. GO BLUE !!!

They say a picture is worth a thousand words,....I'd say these would total over a few million!!!!:bounce: :toast: :bounce:

[saracat]

156. I hate to point this out but your post makes it obvious you know very little about John Kerry .

"Always rich"? Were you aware he wore hand me down clothing and an Aunt had to pay for his schooling? As a young Senator after his first marriage ended, Kerry was so poor he had no place to live and crashed at friends apartments. People bought him food to make sure he ate.Kerry's father was a civil servant and his mother a housewife.His mother was from an aristocratic family but the Kerry family had NO money. And as far as inspring people,Kerry's 1971 speech before Congress is still one of the most inspirational ever given.

[wisteria]

58. Old right wing talking points? Please, is that all you have? n/t

[talk hard]

149. Is that accusation all YOU have?

You better get used to the idea that a lot of people don't like him. And that ain't RW talking points but good solid Democrats that think he was a terrible campaigner. No thanks.

[StoryTeller]

48. YES!!!

Run, John, run!!!!

Integrity, humility, wisdom, experience, compassion, determination, intelligence, adaptability, deep-thinking, moral integrity, courage, and decency...

We need this guy to be president.

Thanks, dailykoff, for the great post!

[dailykoff]

50. You nailed it there, StoryTeller!

We need this guy to be president.

thanks! :hi:

[Sydnie]

52. I have to agree with you

He could mend fences domestically as well as internationally. The rest of the world likes and respects this guy. He IS the embodiment of diplomacy. We NEED you to RUN JOHN!

[wisteria]

53. Wow, I am with you on this. Run Senator Kerry! Run for America. n/t

[dailykoff]

57. Thanks wisteria!

I was inspired by the thread you started yesterday!

:yourock:

I just hope somebody's listening!!

[wisteria]

60. me too. n/t

[AndyTiedye]

54. I Like Kerry, But How Can He Ever Recover? Most People Still Believe the Swift Boat Liars

It is too bad, because he would have made a great President.

[dailykoff]

63. Frankly, I don't think ANYBODY believed those lying scumbags.

It was a convenient excuse to vote for the low-tax, low-expectation "Christian" candidate, period.

[originalpckelly]

64. I don't like him and it has nothing to do with that...

he's not a very competent politician.

[wisteria]

67. No, they don't. Only the hardest of the RW kool aid drinkers.

The SBV have been discredited and besides this is old news. There is no way they will even have an impact this time. Their shock value has run out. The books have come and gone and no one is really going to care after they here more about the man Senator Kerry really is. Those who ran his campaign in 04 made a mistake not allowing some of the best parts of the kerry story be known.

[WildEyedLiberal]

62. Amen, amen amen!!

So happy to K&R this! :kick:

[dailykoff]

94. LOL.

Let's hope it works. I'm going to log off and call both offices right now. What's to lose!

:toast:

[Old and In the Way]

66. I'll support any Dem in the GE, but I'll happily cast my vote for JK, again,

in the primary.

[jgraz]

71. Really, does Kerry running hurt the Dems in any way???

I seriously don't think so (unless he gets the nomination). Since I believe he has no chance in the primaries, what's wrong with one more candidate?

[politicasista]

73. K&R!

Thanks dailykoff.:kick:

[dailykoff]

91. Thanks politicasista!

hope he's listening!

:toast:

[beachmom]

80. Great post. I agree wholeheartedly!!

When I really think about it, and consider all of the candidates, I think Kerry is the only one who will have the guts to extricate us from Iraq and command a diplomatic corps to mend all the damage done in the Middle East. He's the only one who will do that. That is why we need him.

[dailykoff]

93. I feel the exact same way

and frankly it's a scary feeling. Kerry looks to be about our only hope.

Thanks beachmom! :hi:

[Olney Blue]

81. I would vote for Senator Kerry again.

[Quantess]

82. NO, DON'T RUN!

let someone else get a try.

[bicentennial_baby]

83. My Senator should NOT run

Does. Not. Compute. Seriously...

[dailykoff]

86. You can always vote for the other party. (n/t)

[originalpckelly]

89. No we can't, because we are Democrats...

and we have to support anyone who's nominated. You're kind of saying that I have to eat shit or die. I don't think it's a fair choice to do either.

[dailykoff]

92. You can in the general.

You don't have to vote in the primaries if you don't want to, and if they're anything like last time, you won't have to.

[originalpckelly]

98. I take it you didn't get the metaphor...

I was trying to say that voting for a Republican is like choosing death. Get it?

[bicentennial_baby]

100. Excuse me?

Just b/c I don't believe that Senator Kerry should run, I should vote Repuke? Oh, wow, I forgot how f'n hilarious GD can be... :rofl:

[jgraz]

112. There is no other candidate...only Zoool -er- Kerry

Welcome to the wonderful world of the KerryBots. I guess they'll all be voting GOP when their candidate drops out of the race.

[dailykoff]

116. I don't think we'll need to worry about it.

Knock on wood.

[originalpckelly]

120. Don't go knocking on Kerry.

:P

[Danger Mouse]

142. LMFAO

:rofl: :spray:
good one :D

[originalpckelly]

188. I try.

:rofl:

But seriously, if we want to win we have to get someone with more charisma that a grey drip of paint.

[jgraz]

122. In the unlikely event that happens

I'll be supporting him 100%. I'm assuming all the Kerry people will do the same when^H^H^H^Hif we nominate someone else.

So why does anyone who criticizes Kerry get hit with Freeper/Rethug allegations? There have been recent threads on DU criticizing Hillary, Obama and Edwards, and I don't recall a single accusation of freeperism directed toward the people who were criticizing them.

[dailykoff]

126. It can get pretty ugly.

This isn't so bad but I've seen pro-Kerry threads that were about 95% vicious insults, and I mean vicious. You have to wonder where it's all coming from sometimes.

[karynnj]

124. If that happens we will likely all vote for the Democrat

and likely wityh less whining than was seen in 2004.

[dailykoff]

85. Let's call and say "Senator, we got your back! " Here are his DC numbers:

1. Campaign office: 202-464-2136

Friends of John Kerry, Inc.
511 C St. NE
Washington, DC 20002
[e-mail]

from: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/office.html

2. Senate office: [phone]

Office Information:

Washington D.C.
304 Russell Bldg.
Third Floor
Washington D.C. 20510
[phone] - Phone
[phone] - Fax

from: http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/office.html

There are also local Boston, Springfield, and Fall River, MA phone and fax numbers at the Senate office link above.

"Senator Kerry, we got your back!
Please don't let us down!"

[wisteria]

90. Thank you for the numbers! I am going to let him know I will support him again. n/t

[dailykoff]

96. Me too.

Can't hurt to let him know he's got a little support, can it?

[dailykoff]

110. Well I just called both numbers

and left short messages (very short) on the answering machines, making somebody's life difficult no doubt, but of course both offices are closed, so I'll call back tomorrow.

The message at his Senate office recommended e-mailing him from his Senate website. Here's the link to the handy web-mail form:

http://kerry.senate.gov/v3/contact/email.cfm

So I guess I'll send him an e-mail now. :)

[Buzz Clik]

88. cool.

Love your passion.

[nam78_two]

97. Kerry is the ONLY candidate I like other than Gore and Kucinich

I am reading Gary Webb's "Dark Alliance" right now and I have to say if Kerry ran and Gore wasn't running-I say
"RUN JOHN RUN" too....

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce:


Pity more people don't know about Kerry's dogged pursuit of those Reagan-Bush year criminal thugs...

I actually also like a pro-environment, anti-corruption Gore-Kerry ticket.

(and K&R)

[Klimmer]

99. Great post dailykoff, I have to wholeheartedly agree . . .but I have a Q for U

"It boils down to this: the only candidate who has shown even a remote interest in challenging the Bush-MIC-CIA-Oil-PNAC nexis is Kerry -- for example, he's the only senator who's so far raised serious questions about 9/11 -- and it's about time somebody ran this wretched pack of jackals out of Washington."


I'm all over 9-11, do you have resources indicating JK has "raised serious Q's about 9-11"? I would like to know, hear, or read what exactly he said. I don't remember this. I didn't know this. Please help, thanks.

Fellow Kerrycrat,

Klimmer

[dailykoff]

108. Hi Klimmer! Here's a link

to a thread in the 9/11 forum that blm started last October 5:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=121939&mesg_id=121939

Apparently Kerry wrote a letter to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asking for hearings on why the WH failed to act on the intelligence it received. From Kerry's letter:

4. The Administration ignored warnings of an impending attack before 9/11. As reported in the Washington Post on October 2, 2006, Mr. Woodward alleges that on July 10, 2001, there was a “meeting in which George Tenet, the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and his top counterterrorism aide Cofer Black sought to impress on Rice their fears that an attack on the United States was likely…The account said both Tenet and Black felt they were not getting through to Rice, who gave them a polite hearing and a “brush off’”.

Come to think of it, I wonder where blm found this?

[Klimmer]

128. Thanks. I do remember reading this but forgot about it. Thanks again. n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

109. I Wish I Wish I Wish He Was Sworn In Jan 2005. But His Time Is Done For This. It Ain't Gonna Happen

I think he's an incredible Senator and one I'm amazingly proud of. But his chances are practically as bad as Kucinich's chances of winning the nomination. Sadly, it just ain't gonna happen.

[dailykoff]

113. They don't call him Comeback Kerry for nothing.

Seriously, never say never. The fact is there just isn't anyone else out there with half his know-how.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

117. Please Point Out To Me Where I Said Never.

If you can't do so, then please refrain from putting words in my mouth.

Furthermore, though he of course has some chance, I would consider it to be an extremely small one left for the hopes of fools.

[dailykoff]

125. You just did.

Gotcha. :)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

130. Obviously My Statement Applied To Previous Posts, Since Ones To Come Afterwards Would Be Irrelevant

to your reply referencing my PRIOR statements.

So since you failed to be able to point out where I said such a thing, I hope we are in agreement that next time you will avoid putting words in my mouth.

Thanks.

[dailykoff]

131. Well if you want to get technical,

I never said you said never, did I? :)

[oncall]

181. Perfect

[babylonsister]

144. His chances get worse when you think they're nil. Why not Kerry? He IS

the most qualified.

[Skip Intro]

111. A late but strong AGREE!!!

that is all...

[dailykoff]

114. Not late!

Ted Kennedy said today that Kerry might decide in the next 48 hours so that still gives us a day to get the message to him!

[MH1]

127. I agree with every word.

John Kerry is the only candidate I see that I can wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support in the primary.

I'll support whoever wins the nomination, I'm sure, but Kerry is the one who represents **my** values the best, and I sure hope that he runs and wins the nomination. The American people have buyers' remorse and are fed up with the bullshit they were fed in 2004. Kerry stands at least as good a chance of winning the general as anyone, and better than some, imo.

[dailykoff]

133. Roger that!

Thanks MH1! :hi:

[seabeyond]

129. dailykoff... i am with you. RUN kerry RUN.... i agree with your reasons

and i have some others. he has already been trashed. nothing else for bushco to trash him on

many people wish they had voted for him so will be easy this time

i believe he won and had the votes last time

he isnt doing the no dissing anymore. he disses

we know everything about him and will be easy to support

and he has kicked ass last two years

[dailykoff]

132. Six more great reasons!

Thanks seabeyond! :hi:

p.s. I'm really worried that he's thinking of cashing in his chips. That would be a great shame.

[Blue_In_AK]

134. I absolutely agree 100 percent. n/t

[YvonneCa]

135. I concur...

...COMPLETELY ! :7

We need you, Senator. The country needs you. The world needs you. :patriot:

[AtomicKitten]

136. by all means run ... but

this still hangs in the air like a stale fart.

[Eurobabe]

184. LOL

Whatever. Run if you want John. Part of my new attitude to stop the circular firing squad. The people who vote in primaries will determine the candidate.

[Danger Mouse]

141. Well, I like Kerry to some degree, but...

...he voted for the war. Sorry, but there's no excuse. He rolled over like a little puppy dog and did Bush's bidding. And then when he got Swift-boated in '04, he rolled over like a little puppy dog and 'took the high road,' and look at what that did for him. And then when the election was stolen, he rolled over like a little puppy dog and whimpered his way back to the Senate. Notice a pattern?
If Kerry wants to run in 08, he has to grow some balls.

[FrenchieCat]

145. John Kerry should run if he wants to.....

Its supposed to be a free country.

Whomever wants to vote for him, should do so.......

The rest will be called history.

[petron]

151. No don't run

Kerry is NOT a viable candidate. I can't believe this thread has been recommended so highly.

[beachmom]

152. It's been rec'd because a lot of folks have watched his actions

in the Senate and know him to be a leader. None of the other Senate candidates were willing to fight for an Alito filibuster; none of the other Senate candidates felt compelled to co-sponsor or vote for the Kerry/Feingold amendment to get our troops out of Iraq. This is plain and simple about principles.

[Vektor]

153. Great idea...

I'm all for a Kerry run myself. ;-)

[Joe Chi Minh]

154. Kerry's seems to have a number of critics on here, but I'll bet you

a pound to a pinch of **** they're a small minority in the country.

[wisteria]

155. You are absolutely correct. A small group of critics indeed.

Sen. Kerry does wonderful when he takes his message directly to the people. That way they get the truth not the spin. Some on DU who criticize him use media talking points and spin to do so. However, many more people can see past the media games and know that Senator Kerry has been a true fighter on their behalf and has an appealing and calming quality about him.

[Joe Chi Minh]

160. Yes, he shown that he's an outstanding strategist, as well as a

street-fighter for a more just America. We ought to call him Smokin' John!

His career in both the law and politics is all the proof anyone could ask for, that he's not just talk, not just a spinner of bullsh*t, but a man with a PROVEN record in both fields of a very high order.

I don't have the slightest doubt that, contrary to the notions of an idiot poster (the Barren, I think), I was too slow to read and respond to, both Kerry and Edwards would UNDOUBTEDLY have vehemently protested the Iraq war, rather than acquiesce in it, had they thought there was the remotest chance of deterring the neocon "Noddy in Toyland" chicken-hawks from pursuing their road to national ruin. Tough sh*t, you Kerry critics. They didn't make vaingloriouly doomed empty gestures. GET OVER IT!

From the public's standpoint, what better weapons could there be in the armoury of a lawmaker, whose soul has never been for sale to the highest bidder, than a record like Kerry's of expertise, experience and compassion. Had he chosen to be a Republican he could surely have doubled the family's fortune during this period of rapine and waste.

[Beelzebud]

171. Exactly what strategy was he using during the Swiftboat vet attacks?

His strategy was to sit on his ass and ignore the problem.

The day after the election his strategy was to give up before the fight began.

For fuck's sake when Kerry was asked "Knowing what you know now would you still authorize the Iraqi War Resolution?" and Kerry's pathetic response was: "Yes"

John Kerry lost to the worst president in the history of America. He had his chance.

[dailykoff]

176. It seemed pretty effective to me

but then I wasn't living in a red state. I remember many print and broadcast interviews Kerry gave that August, all of which began or quickly turned to the swiftboat ads, which he dispatched with a few well-phrased sentences, and the interviews moved on.

Meanwhile he mobilized his band of brothers and found another previously silent witness(a Chicago Tribune reporter I believe) to join the chorus on his behalf, and that got a lot of press.

I didn't hear many Clinton staffers -- granted, Bill was having heart surgery, so he and Hillary were excused -- beating the drum for their party's candidate.

Grand Canyon moment: it seemed to me Kerry was saying "I thought it through carefully at the time, and under the circumstances cast a sensible vote." If he'd said anything else the press would have had a flip-flop field day and we both know it.

[Beelzebud]

177. So effective he's still Senator Kerry....

[dailykoff]

178. Yes, according to Kenneth Blackwell

and according to the DNC's Voting Rights Initiative report on the 2004 election in Ohio, which concludes that "The statistical study of precinct-level data does not suggest the occurrence of widespread fraud that systematically misallocated votes from Kerry to Bush" (Executive Summary, p. 10, link below).

Personally, I don't find either of their arguments persuasive.

http://a9.g.akamai.net/7/9/8082/v001/www.democrats.org/pdfs/ohvrireport/section02.pdf

[SharonRB]

157. You are a brave soul -- I'm almost afraid to read the thread

However, I do agree with you. Gore is my number one choice, but I think I'm going to have to start facing the reality soon that he probably won't run. After I met Kerry in July, he went way back up on my list and is my number 2 choice. I'm just so afraid he can't win, which is making me feel like I have to find someone else to support in the primaries. Unfortunately, I don't think any of the others have his experience or qualifications. If he can overcome the stupid botched joke -- which is a ridiculous thing -- maybe he can have another shot at it.

On edit: Well, now that I've read most of it, I'm actually a bit surprised that most people posting are for Kerry running, not against. There weren't too many folks here badmouthing him -- a few, but not as many as I would have expected. I'm glad -- I really do still like him.

[jaksavage]

158. No way!

He had his chance in 04 and he didn't stand up to the expected dirty tricks. Plus 5 days before the 06 election he is out there with his foot in his mouth. Not helping the dems. I think his Skull and Bones roots are deeper than his Democratic ones.
Plenty of folks could do better than *it.
A trained monkey...

[_dynamicdems]

167. Who would have expected the dirty tricks to come from his own side?

I've done a bit of googling lately and there were a LOT of nasty hit pieces from the left during the 2004 campaign. That's a bit suspicious to me. Talk about death by a million paper cuts!

Skull and Bones, the Yale fraternity populated by BOTH Democrats and Republicans, isn't all that much different from the Shriners or any of the "men's clubs" that used to be popular and prestigious. Kerry was instrumental in helping to open the S&B to women, which changed it fundamentally. I applaud him for this.

[wisteria]

174. Wow, you are off base- really. Sen. Kerry raised more money and spent

more time traveling the country promoting our candidates in 06. He was the first to support Webb in Va, and he worked tirelessly with veterans groups to urge people to vote for veterans.
Frankly, Kerry did not put his foot in his mouth as you claim. He omitted one word- us- from a sentence, and even with that word missing it is obvious to anyone with a brain and no agenda of their own, that he was not in anyway referring to our troops. I question why specific other Democrats felt a need to back up the Rove, and stab kerry in the back?

The S&B crap is just that-crap.

You are entitled to vote for whomever you want to, but you aren't entitled to just attack a good Democrat with untruths and not have your comments challenged.

[wisteria]

175. KIck!

[mloutre]

179. Wow! John Kerry For President?

That's an interesting concept. I'll definitely have to put it on my must-think-about list.

[oncall]

182. Great picture of an Otter. Anybody you know?

[dailykoff]

183. Ah, so that's what it is.

I was wondering!

p.s. welcome to DU both of you! :toast:

[wisteria]

180. I think he should run too, I don't care who else is running or not! He will have my vote! n/t