Deleted message

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

but Kerry is still in my list of candidates. I have e-mailed the campaign on several occasions telling them to change the way it is run. His campaign team, well before, really really didn't know what they were doing. I think they were looking at polls more often instead of looking at individual voices.

It's Kerry, Dean, or Clark for me--with Edwards and Kucinich on the list as long shots.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

I'm attending Meetups for those three this month and next, and Dean is in Houston for a rally on Nov. 18th. I'm attending his cocktail reception that day as well.

(Dons flame-retardant suit) The rest of the candidates need to be excluded from future debates, so that the party can winnow out the nominee.

A big reason Dean's up 15 in New Hampshire is because of Kerry's idiot campaign.

Later.

RJS

until I read his position on medical marijuana and had a change of heart, even spending two days convinced I was behind Kerry.

Today, I'm officially undecided.

Head tells me Dean or Clark stand the best chance.

Heart tells me Sharpton is the closest to me on the issues.

beginning with Kerry. He would most likely been my candidate (when Gore decided not to run again) but the IWR and his total support including speeches on the Senate floor in favor of it, completely turned me off.

As with John Edwards, he seemed to listen more to handlers than the people on the outside who would have been thrilled to support him if he had looked beyond "the moment" and honored the constitution as Robert Byrd did. However,listening to "insiders and jaded pols" marked both of them as "out of touch.

Very well indeed.

One of the things most Washington insiders don't seem to get, whether they're running for Prez or not, is that we out here in the hintrlands -- you know, the ones they're supposed to be "representing" -- are fed up to HERE with not being listened to. At all, ever. We can write, call, petition-sign, march and protest our brains out and they seem completely oblivious. That is a huge piece of Dean's appeal and success. I'm tired of being fucking invisible.

The only way Kerry would get my vote -- yes, even if he's the nominee -- is a complete disavowal of the IRW. That's not just a policy difference, that was a life and death vote.

Eloriel

That's EXACTLY what draws me to Dean. He LISTENS to the people, and has been doing so since day one. I about crumbled when Congress gave * a blank check...I couldn't believe they sold their souls to win a reelection, knowing that thousands of people would die because of their selfish choice.

How right you are; that vote was NOT about some arcane matter of policy. And Kerry, Edwards, Lieberman and Gephardt's going along to get along 'aye' votes for IWR soured me on all of them. But Kerry's position was the most disappointing. He had no real opposition in his 2002 re-election campaign, his Massachusetts constituents were soundly opposed to war and as a wounded, decorated war veteran, he had the upper hand in opposing Bushco and justifying a NO vote. He caved to political expediency and cowardice and is paying dearly for it.

A campaign shuffle now really won't make much difference to those of us who once supported him. Too little, too late ... there has been too much death, destruction and debt because of that vote.

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

His heart doesn't quite seem to be in it, does it?

Gary Hart was actually the same way. There was a Newsweek or Time article after the debacle that forced him out, and he said something to the effect that he'd always been ambivalent about the loss of privacy involved with running for President. Poof! He self-sabotaged himself, whether subconsciously or not.

Eloriel

I saw it on CNN and waited for somebody to put it up on LBN.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=209972
MSNBC Breaking: Kerry Has Fired Campaign Manager

where on the West Coast are you now?

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

n/t

Dean showed no hesitation to bash other Democrats and make a name for himself. He had been bashing Democrats his entire career while aligning with the GOP in Vermont. He had LOTS of practice.

Kerry and the others hesitated for far too long in dealing with those attacks on them. THAT was their campaign's mistake.

Kerry KNOWS how to run against Republicans. He doesn't seem to big on running against another Democrat.

PS: The media treating Kerry like Gore and Dean like Bush doesn't help.
The media has STILL not scrutinized Dean and his actual positions. After 11 months of Dean focus, they are still labeling him a liberal populist when he governed exactly the opposite. Even his defenders here agree he's a centrist. So you KNOW the media is pushing a wrong image.

If more of you knew him as governor and the way he treated Democrats, you'd see him as Zell Miller.

>>>>>>>>>
Mention Howard Dean to the folks who know him best, and they shake their heads in awe, marveling at how their very own "Ho-Ho" has muscled his way to the forefront of Democratic presidential politics.

They see him on TV, firing up the liberals, and they're dumbfounded, because they always knew him as a tightwad governor who spent 10 years excoriating liberals. They see him wowing the "flatlanders" (that's everyone outside of Vermont), whipping them into a frenzy, and they can't square that with the little guy who wore frayed shirts and goofy ties and delivered speeches that lulled listeners into a stupor.

<snip>
And whatever happened to the Howard Dean who, when asked to render an opinion about the governor of Texas back in 1999, always gave the same answer: "I like George Bush, he's a good guy."
<snip>

Instead he would often rant at his detractors, calling them "lunatics," or confronting them with "the finger in the face," as Nelson calls it. At times he would get so mad that the skin on his thick wrestler's neck would redden to the color of raw meat. No wonder some folks used to call him "Little Napoleon."

<snip>

Meanwhile, the Republicans liked him just fine, because they were simpatico. Dean was old money (a descendant of whaling captains), with roots on Park Avenue and in the Hamptons. They also liked that he wasn't a "bleeding heart" - as evidenced by the time he publicly berated a single mother on welfare, saying, "You don't think you ought to work for a living?"

http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/front/7215420.htm

"Dean showed no hesitation to bash other Democrats and make a name for himself."

Neither did Kerry... the difference is that Dean attaked Kerry for his votes and for supporting half of the garbage Bush sent through congress in the last 3 years.

Kerry attacked Dean by distorting things Dean said 10 years ago.


That's why Dean is so far ahead of Kerry. Dean's attacks were true and accurate criticisms of Kerry's voting record and support for Bush's agenda. Dean attacked Kerry for voting for the IWR, for voting for that 350 billion tax cut amendment, and for flip flopping on support for the war in Iraq.

Whereas Kerry was distorting things Dean said about the UN, military size, distorting responses to hypothetical questions in decade old interviews as if they were policy positions or goals, and flat out lying about Dean's position on medicare, and now resorting to saying Dean embraced the confederate flag.

Kerry has made nothing but baseless misleading bullshit attacks, and that is why Dean is beating him.

the web gives poiticians a way to truely harness the POWER of the 'masses' by alowing them to build a community of geographically and ideologically disparate online that can scale to fit any size.

let's face it there are too many folks to keep track of all by yourself or even with a 'large' focused campaign team.

it works when everyone is doing it the old way but they will be 'left behind' if they don't ADAPT and change because there are too many networked hearts-and-minds to compete with otherwise.

who are the only ones who can compete with MS in the web space?

APACHE an OPENSOURCE web server that consistantly kicks their butt ;->

more...
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2003/09/01/september_2003_web_server_survey.html

or it good be my geek colored glasses ;->

:hi:

peace

I would really like to support Kerry, but I just can't --- after IWR. Yes, he does know how to run against Republicans. But right now, I am leaning towards Clark or Dean.

I just hope to God that we find someone who can actually beat Bush. I have this gut feeling that Dean is not that person.

I am an old progressive, from the 1960's. I have recently rekindled my activism, because I have not been this angry since 1968.

No matter who ends up with the nomination, we will have to work hard to get out the vote. I have seen too many good candidates lose, because we have not done that.

"I've heard that Jordan and his crew lobbied hard for Kerry to vote in favor of the IWR, and I've heard that Jordan's loyalists within the campaign threatened to walk out en masse if Kerry fired him." and Kerry capitulated, I'm not even sure I would vote for him in the general election.

Jay

I've heard that Jordan and his crew lobbied hard for Kerry to vote in favor of the IWR, and I've heard that Jordan's loyalists within the campaign threatened to walk out en masse if Kerry fired him.

is your implication here that Kerry's IWR vote was influenced, at least to some degree, by the politics of the situation?

when i called his office to oppose the IWR, I was told that Kerry's calls were running better than 20 - 1 against the resolution ... is that why he ignored those who contacted him?

re: the Dean / Kerry discussion, i've been torn between a candidate I think is better on the issues and more experienced versus a candidate who seems to be doing a better job at "the politics and the campaign" ...

too bad I can't get both in the same package ... i'm still undecided ...

on an Iraq plan. They were addressing a greater issue at the time...rising fundamentalism that was leading to a 9-11. Saddam and Iraq were targets for overthrow by Bin Laden. We all know that, yet still ignore it as a factor.

Kerry was NOT being political with the IWR, he was being consistent while getting a better bill and preserving the UN in the process.

If its true, I just wish Kerry would come out and say it. I can listen to reason, but that is one thing that no Democratic candidate that voted for the IWR has offered me.

It's painfully obvious why Kerry and other big hitting dems in Congress voted for the IWR - it was out of sheer terror for opposing it, as they might be seen as "unpatriotic".

Do you really want a follower to be "leading" a nation's policy?

i was asking if that was Pete's implication when he wrote:

I've heard that Jordan and his crew lobbied hard for Kerry to vote in favor of the IWR, and I've heard that Jordan's loyalists within the campaign threatened to walk out en masse if Kerry fired him.

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

just suggesting that one of his trusted advisors pulling him toward a Yes vote may have had some effect on his final decision.

one of his trusted political advisors ...

my point isn't necessarily to argue that political considerations should have been ignored on the IWR vote ... considering the politics on any vote is "looking at the big picture" ... we always seem caught up between doing what's best and doing what's practical ...

there's no question bush had the votes regardless of how Kerry voted ... perhaps this made him more free to vote as he did ...

than the one Bush wanted.

... could not agree with you less.

Tell me again how voting for the IWR was going to accomplish that? This I gotta hear.

n/t

Instead of relying on his lengthy liberal history that got him re-elected over and over with huge margins, he listened to the siren song of the soi-disant 'center' and marched into their swamp where he is now up to his oxters.

This sacking might be a hint that he's finally come to see the 'centrists' for what they are.

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

I don't know anything about the inner workings of anybody's campaign, but firing a campaign manager at this point just don't look so good ta me.

Any historical data on a candidate who's done this and gone on to victory?

while he was trailing Bill Bradley in the polls.

Of course, the press was treating Gore as badly then as they pump up Dean now.

it is about Kerry and no one else.

Don't get me wrong, I think Kerry has a fine record, but I think he is more the dignified Senator than a Presidential candidate with populus appeal.

Whether it is due to poor health earlier in the campaign or distast for the campaign trail, Kerry just doesn't seem to be convincingly in the spirit.

Apologies to his devoted supporters, but he is somewhat flat.

if, as you write, you are involved with the campaign, you had to apply and sign a confidentiality agreement (even to volunteer). if you haven't gone through the process, please don't give DUers the false impression that you have.

as for the campaign not taking your advice, there are 3 full time interns in the DC HQ alone who do nothing but record email talking points and forward them to the policy team upstairs. meanwhile, 5 or 6 others answer the phones and provide info/ record advice, and forward talking points to the appropriate team.

several more interns deal with the snail mail: well-meaning citizens send WAPO and NYTimes clips (several days old) with urgent messages, like: "Senator Kerry simply has to read this!"

as for having influence inside the campaign, every contact is noted, one way or another, even if you don't get a personal response.

to suggest otherwise is just not true.

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

Otherwise, I have no use for him.

And, he will do terribly in the South. He can't win.

Kerry was getting competing messages from the professional political advisors in DC and his long-time people from Boston. Personally, I had hoped Kerry would eventually go to the Boston people because they love the candidate, not the job. I trust them more and so does Kerry. That matters enormously. I truly think we will see a Kerry much truer to himself now.

Plus...we got a lady in charge now! Take that "Men Only" sign down!

<>

We were pummelling him through August, but his campaign turned on a dime when Bob Shrum was hired as his consultant. It went from flaccid to sharp in a week."

Kerry's aides insist that it was more than Shrum. They say that Kerry was distracted in Washington, that he didn't really focus on the campaign until the Senate recessed. "It wasn't a lack of focus," Kerry says. "It was a strategy. I figured people wouldn't really be paying attention until the fall debates."

The last four debates were fabulous political theatre-two very smart men having at each other. "John's at his best under pressure, when he's being seriously challenged," Paul Nace, an old Navy friend, says.

"He gets really cool, very calm. He really is a warrior-he just loves it. I took one look at him as he was walking into Faneuil Hall for one of the last debates and I thought, Bill Weld has no idea what's about to hit him."

Kerry won the election by eight percentage points. "John has always been underestimated politically," Marttila says. "But that race had the quality and intensity of a Presidential campaign, and he won. I don't see how they can underestimate him anymore, but they probably will."

From The New Yorker (dead link, sorry)