Gavin Newsom is warming up in the bullpen, too. And he's young, also. He's smart, already has a lot of governing experience, and he has loads of sex appeal. TOTALLY camera-ready, which never hurts in this day and age. He'd also geographically balance the ticket very nicely. He'll probably be California's governor by then.

But el sayed and Kennedy are both young and share a populist appeal with a strong and legitimate democratic populist message and more than anything that is what we need to win and keep power.

His comments on the Affordable Care Act were so moving. It's been a long time since I heard a politician speak that way - straight from the heart - to any other hearts that might be listening. Mine definitely was. I'm keeping an eye on this one. He sure seems like The Real Thing.

1) single-player health care coverage for all;

2) breaking up too-big-to-fail Wall Street banks;

3) income inequality;

4) free college tuition;

5) $15/hr minimum wage; and

6) refusing to accept dirty corporate/lobbyist campaign contributions.

Conyers has lined up 117 cosponsors but, to my surprise, Kennedy is not one of them.

I haven't done any other research. It's possible that he favors some form of single payer but has issues with the specifics of HR 676.

Geez...you may have a candidate who may not believe everything you wrote...then what? I don't care for single payer ...don't think it will work...there are better systems in Europe...and free tuition...never happen, but we could work on helping those with student debt and maybe a junior college approach...$15.00 not happening anytime soon either., but let's get what we can... how about preserving the ACA, Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid, saving the environment (that is never in any of the important demands by those who claim special progressive status (not talking about you), a woman's right to choose is missing too...all economics...most not going to happen. But we will get some stuff if we elect any Democrat even one who falls short of your standards...looking at your list, I can see where a candidate who espouse those six things might have trouble with women and people of color...as a woman I don't find them inspiring...I am looking at losing the right to use birth control and abortion rights... I also notice there is nothing about the issues facing people of color either. We need to have a primary someone will win and then we need to vote for that person no matter what...even if they are not perfect.

name ...yes why then I vote for him/her. I won't waste my time on primaries and will vote for the incumbent if any of our revolution types primary Sherrod Brown or Tim Ryan.

you're demanding purity on all those issues?

I like your logic!!!

vote if he/she doesn't is a purity test. At the primary level, this is fine...but once the GE comes, vote for the person with the "D" next to his /her name. And don't run them down on various blogs and turn others against the only candidate that can stop the GOP from the only party that can and has passed all progressive policy. They may not be pure in your eyes...but consider the alternative.

Love how you put words in my mouth... please stop digging... you're embarrassing yourself. Thank you.

home because the Democratic candidate is not perfect. Vote for the Democrat always...things will improve. Also, you can look at his stances at the web page below...he has a 'D' on Marijuana. but is stellar on all other issues. I believe Patrick Kennedy shares the same view...perhaps we can change his mind or not. But as I said. I think it will be won in the states.

http://www.ontheissues.org/MA/Joe_Kennedy_III.htm

that Kennedy take a certain stand on a list of NON-exclusive issues I was merely inquiring about, which you say is a purity test, when you said "No, demanding that the candidate stand for YOUR version of certain issues and withholding your vote if he/she doesn't is a purity test."

Again, if we're talking about OTHER voters who actually DID do that, you sure did not make that point clear. Again my apologies... were you to do the same, I gladly accept.

Peace!

He described it as "how we take care of one another." Which just stopped me in my tracks. DAYUM! He even messaged it outstandingly! Put a MAJOR spin of compassion on it. Aimed straight at his listeners' consciences. And hit the bull's eye, in my opinion. YES that's how we need to present and message and spin stuff like this! Reach for the heart. I'd never heard the idea of affordable health care described that way, and I thought it was spectacular! Genius!

Perhaps that's a theme of his? Seems like it would cover all the items you've listed here, in one way or other. That mentality, recognizing that need, and those issues that are part of that need. The conscious and active awareness that we "take care of one another."

I do need to research more, because I'm really just starting to get to know him. But 2020 is awhile off, and there's time.

"It's how we take care of one another." What a unifying theme! One that appeals to our higher selves. And after exposure to the trump mentality and approach to things, seems to me this would be like manna from Heaven, or fresh cool rain to a desperately parched earth. DAYUM - that's a campaign slogan right there. "It's how we take care of one another."

Something of which I think we need to be reminded. Sure haven't heard anything summed up that way in a long time.

Yes, lack of experience means there is less to target, but the political situation right now requires skill plus experience.

And before the posts accumulate, I think that there is a point at which age and the health issues that it brings can be problematic due to the stamina required to do the job.


Give him a few more years.

I don't know people are so quick to dismiss experience in politics. If we're sick, we want the most experienced doctor possible. But if we want someone to run the entire country, with the biggest economy in the world, we somehow put a premium on novices. And the Obama comparison doesn't work. He was pushing 50 at the time of his election, with decades of experience as a community organizer, state senator, and U.S. Senator.

Senator or Governor.

better off from his having been president.

It is literally 24/7, and she/he is expected to deal with everything that comes at them.

Look at how our current PEEOTUS is ill equipped to deal with it. The international travel is much more frequent now, and he doesn't deal with it well mentally or physically.

And FDR didn't survive his last term. There would be no way a president could head off to a retreat like FDR did, especially during something as enormous as WW2.

And all won against far more experienced opponents. Gore, Kerry, McCain, Hillary, all very experienced, all lost.

Experience might matter to make better decisions, but it's been a political albatross for decades now. So many skeletons, unpopular votes, bland personalities, and the label "establishment" has sunk them all.

.....we say "maybe next time". Like some did about Obama in 2008.....

Meanwhile, do we just keep nominating people who are eligible for Medicare?

I was trying to say I'd be excited to see him run in any of these election cycles. Have had my eye on him.....

I'm impressed and then more impressed.

He gave such a heartfelt comment about WHY we need and should support the Affordable Care Act, during a TV interview a few months ago. He characterized it as "the way we take care of one another."

We don't hear NEARLY enough of that kind of message. He speaks the truth and the Teachings of Jesus and the implicit nobility of living according to those Teachings. We need that kind of talk in politics - to remind us of what we once were, and still insist we are even when our actions confirm the opposite. We NEED that. We NEED those reminders that appeal to whatever's left of America's higher self. Especially if we yearn to get that back.

And stylistically (if nothing else), there's nobody better to lead us that way than another Kennedy. I'd vote for him in an instant. I'd vote for him right now. But in 2020, he'd have a few more years under his belt and maybe the "he's too young" argument might fade a little bit by then.

n/t

He also has a way of expressing idealism.....

that I am really impressed with him. He is not only on the right side of all the issues, but he is inspiring in a way that we haven't seen in politics in a very long time. I believe he understands what it means to be a public servant and that he is not in this for his own ego or glory.

I would be 100% behind him if he decided to run.

It runs in the family.

At this stage it would have to be someone pretty impressive running against him to make me not vote for him. I really like him.

He'll be 40 on election day in 2020. That's middle aged in most worlds.
He's smart, good looking, got the right politics, squeaky clean, and will attract a broad spectrum of voters.
He would make Trump look like a corpse.

paid to him.

to get attention.

I won't reject him out of hand, as much as I dislike dynasties on principle...but what's he done, and for whom?

" as much as I dislike dynasties on principle..."

Denial of a vote due only to genetics is as absurd a notion as is casting a vote due only to genetics... even on principle.

I said I could overlook his family connections and privilege--which are far more than the mere "genetics" you mentioned (my objections would remain had he been adopted). I could be willing to go for a nostalgia candidate who is also truly accomplished or who I believe is benevolent. What does he do that warrants voting him into the White House, more so than other qualified candidates? Or would you say he is at least worth considering somewhere down the road as one who is likely to do good?

but what I know gets a

Considers his wife a life partner. Very unlike Trump.

how could anyone possibly know who is "faithful"

what I detest is people who are screaming FAMILY VALUES while doing all kinds of things contrary to FAMILY VALUES

Being faithful to a wife isn't seen as something that's necessary now-a-days in politics.

But then again, it IS where Democrats are concerned.

As for thuglicans, they're held to different standards by the "Liberal Media" and they make different standards for themselves. They can cheat on their wives, wear diapers, lie, ask God for forgiveness--and their spouses "usually" cry and ask for God to forgive their husbands so they can keep their spouses in office.

In the political way of course.
We need another Kennedy right now, and I think that is a great selling point!

This kid makes me proud for RFK.

I'd work his campaign in a heartbeat.

hill. It was wonderful while it lasted......

I worked Bobby's campaign when I was 11 years old Stuffed a lot of envelopes back then.

and yes, it was wonderful while it lasted.

who are inspired and energized by a Democratic Party that has offered an alternative to supply side idiocy.

tailored to their user experience, and one who is isn't is, by definition, CORRUPT and NO DIFFERENT than a REPUBLICAN LITE!!!!111!!!

That is a tragic side effect of 2016.

but that search, and voter apathy, combined to bring us Trump.

he even voted against a bill to block the DEA from targeting MEDICAL marijuana businesses

field and many of us have mixed feelings about this topic. Many of my clients have schizophrenia and are looking at marijuana as the "holy grail." I think cannabis oil could be a great thing though. I would be leery if he was against medical marijuana. This issue is really up to the states to vote on it. A governor is more able to block this than a president.

Alcohol causes all kinds of problems, in fact is toxic. And yet, outlawing it never solved jack shit.

Some people shouldn't use cannabis just like some people shouldn't use alcohol. Doesn't change the fact that legalization works.

Time for Joe to join the 21st century.

not a fan of nanny staters who think the government should make personal choices on behalf of adults

he just hasn't "evolved" yet. Many Democratic candidates had to do that on equal marriage, once it became politically expedient to do so.

Hopefully he's listening to them.

the feds want to step up and enforce it

I won't vote for a prohibitionist

appeal widely to voters AND, if implemented, fix or improve actual problems that we face?

If the answer is: "He's a Kennedy" or "He's young and good-looking", I'm going to need a whole lot more before I commit.

in this case, a powerful talisman in the form of a last name.

What people seem to forget is, Barack Obama AND Bill Clinton both came from middle class obscurity. They rose to where they were through pure meritocracy.

In that order.

Unstoppable.

If not Kennedy, I think a good running mate would be Gov. Tom Wolf of PA. He is very popular here and would be in the Elder Statesman role (like Biden) as he will be 70-ish then. He's older than he looks.

8 years of Harris then 8 years of Kennedy.
The GOP wouldn't know what hit them.

It would attract main stream Dems, minorities and the youth.

They would be unstoppable in my humble opinion.

Also, given the issues we've had with minority and oppressed communities in our party feeling under-represented, 'splained to and not having their considerations taken seriously enough on the national level...

isn't bumping a rich, hetero white male with a famous and powerful pedigree to the front of the line kind of the very definition of privilege?

but she would be a bad candidate. You won't get legalization at the federal level...it will happen in states.

There is a template from the ending of alcohol prohibition, too. States could still set their own laws, but the federal prohibition is removed.

For one thing, Descheduling can take place through a variety of channels- the FDA/DEA (unlikely) - Congress (also unlikely, but increasingly less so, given public opinion) or unilaterally through the executive.

So all it would take for Cannabis to be removed from the CSA entirely is one POTUS willing to do so. Period.

And like I said, there are multiple means via which descheduling could occur.

I think you're ot hearing me- The feds letting it go is all it would require, because the vast majority of drug enforcement takes place at the state and local level. Again, there is precedent in the way alcohol prohibition was ended. States could still enact their own laws, etc.

There will not be a legalization bill out of Washington for years maybe never. We need to work at the state level.

You're not hearing me.

sorry to nitpick.

as President? Nothing against Kennedy but we came SO CLOSE to having a woman president and the fucking Electoral College is why we have Trump.

Let's start talking about a woman for president. We should have a vigorous debate about who is the best woman for the job, fer chrissake...

This Kennedy kid needs to get in tune with his constituents.

Bush Jr. Notwithstanding, the Democratic party has always been way more into political dynasties.

And unfortunately I don't see that going away anytime soon.

I eagerly await the calls for Cuomo/Kennedy 2020.

Sure, he'd make some procedural mistakes in the beginning and step on a few of the wrong toes but look at Trump with higher age and less experience (not to mention candlepower, maturity and sanity).

I think that his position on cannabis can evolve. I REFUSE to be a one-issue voter if the issue is something on which he can get with the trend with a little enlightenment and consultation with experts.

Yes, he's white and wealthy. I also refuse to make this any more qualifying or disqualifying than black and poor. What kind of an idiot would I have to be to say no just because of one or the other? What I care about are things like foreign policy, the economy, the environment, health care improvement, education, social issues, and all that other stuff a sitting president has to deal with. I'd also appreciate it if he would be the first presidential aspirant named Kennedy who did NOT get himself shot while campaigning or in office! With all the right wing maniacs out there these days, that's not a given.

Barack Obama electrified people every time he spoke.

If this kid is all that, then he'll do fine. The people so impressed with him should ask themselves if they would be so blown away by the guy if he was 5'4", bald, and his last name was "Reyerson"

Although if he has the fire and the passion who knows? Howard Dean is of relatively diminutive stature, and no one ever got on his case for hat.

Anything else risks us losing out on our next potential winner. Come one, come all. Let a hundred flowers bloom. Just not the Republicans' version: "Let a hundred turds blossom."

Noxious weeds that bully their way into control.

Party needs to move forward, not backwards.

But fuck, some people here suuuuuuure don't like to be reminded of that.

People argue that we shouldn't rule him out just because he's a Kennedy, as if we'd be talking about a backbencher junior Congressman from the Northeast named Johnson or Smith.

And they forget that the last two Democratic Presidents were both very successful two-termers who both rose to prominence from anonymous, middle-class backgrounds with no pedigree to speak of.

Bill Clinton and Barack Obama are both examples of meritocracy in action; a value one would think we all get behind and respect as progressives.

They came from middle class, anonymous backgrounds and got where they ended up through pure meritocracy.

Why do we have this magical thinking that a special last name will win us elections just because it reminds of saddle shoes, Elvis and losing our virginity?

But he's got time, doesn't he.

I didnt listen

And he's trying to inflict Ivanka and the rest on us, perhaps not in the sense of establishing a royal family, but because he has no firm connections beyond immediate family with which to consolidate power.

The only "dynasty" in America has been that of the Bushes.

As with Bush and Clinton the Kennedy name will bring a slew of shit true or not.

consider Kennedys if they are talented. John Kennedy served less than three years almost sixty years ago...who cares.

with the name of Smith?

He was a great president. The nice thing about Kennedy is we can get behind him ...not Bernie or Hillary 2016 residue.

And he was not exactly trading in his family name.

would like? I think some here think Sen. Sanders will run in 20. I don't think he will and doubt he would win if he did...but I hope no matter what we have voters who realize the most important thing is to toss out the GOP...that was not the case in 16.

Otherwise he doesn't stand out from the other 180+ Dems in Congress. If his name were "Smith" we wouldn't be talking about a junior Congressman from Massachusetts.

This is a great speech and if you google him...you might see why we like him.

candidate if his last name were Jones.

JFK was elected 57 years ago. What is the statute of limitations? 60 years? 70 years? 100? If one of Jefferson's descendants wanted to run should they be branded as part of a dynasty as well?