The Kerry campaign has hit the reef, and is sinking.

Campaign manager Jim Jordan was fired in a shakeup. Now, Kerry's press secretary Robert Gibbs and deputy finance director Carl Schindlow have also quit. Gibbs pointedly quit to protest the firing of Jordan. This is, to a certain extent, expected. Campaign managers have the loyalty of other staffers, and when they get dumped, it is not hard to understand why some would leave as well in anger.

But now the collapse of Kerry's campaign structure is the story of his campaign, and will be for a while now. Nothing of his message, his ideas, his policy issues, or anything substantive will get covered. The press loves to write 'process' stories, i.e. the political machinations behind a decision, rather than stories about issues or ideals. That's been standard for a while. It's not "Candidate X believes in workers rights," but "Candidate X is trying to court the union vote."

The process behind the implosion of Kerry's campaign will be the story now.

The New Hampshire primary is January 27, 11 weeks from now. Kerry must:

* Get his new campaign manager in harness;

* Find a new press secretary;

* Find a new deputy finance director;

* Quell any other potential revolts within his campaign staff;

*Figure out a way to get the press to cover something besides the fact that he lost his manager, press secretary and deputy finance director;

* Figure out a way to overcome the double-digit lead enjoyed in New Hampshire by candidate Dean;

- who certainly and demonstrably will do nothing to help him in this process;

- who is sending 6,000 of his own troops into New Hampshire in January because he apparently knows how to win;

* Be able to do this subject-change through Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Years when no one but no one but dorks like us will be paying attention to anything but turkeys and shopping and decorations;

* Simultaneously deal with the fact that only the base of the Democratic Party votes in the primaries, and the base doesn't like him to begin with for the most part because of his Iraq war vote.

He has less than 100 days to do this.

I'm a Kerry guy, and I have been watching this campaign like a hawk. The wheels have come off, and it will take a NASCAR-level pit crew to get them back on again in time to salvage New Hampshire. Given what just happened within his campaign, I don't think that pit crew is going to be in place anytime soon, and every second counts now. If Kerry loses New Hampshire, he's done. Turn out the lights. Find another campaign.

I'll be happy to have any fellow Kerry supporters convince me I am wrong here. I don't think you can do it, but I'm all ears.

Can he do it? I don't know, but I guess it is possible??? :freak:

And plus, isn't there going to be a filibuster tommorrow in the Senate??

This is the worst time for Kerry camaign. It couldn't have happened at a worst time.

and put us all out of watching him slowly twist in the wind.

Had Kerry voted against the Iraq war, he would be today the clear front runner and DUers would be speculating as to Kerry's VP running mate.

He made the wrong choice and he is paying for it.

"If he had voted against the war..." And I have followed Kerry since he returned from Nam, just after me. I remember how courageous he was when he started the VVAW (Viet Vets Against the War). If there was anyone that you would think was anti-war, especially the war in Iraq, it would be John Kerry. I'm not ready to write him off.

which was the more reason why I expected more from Kerry than to endorse another Tonkin Gulf Resolution.

Kerry is having a harder time admiting he was wrong on Iraq, and taking corrective action, than Hubert Humphrey.

Kerry had so much going for him, including a brilliant and great humanitarian wife, and he pissed all of that away.

In a poignant message on the aftermath of September 11, Teresa Heinz spoke about her own sense of mission:

There is a saying in my native Portuguese that translates roughly as, “God writes straight on twisted lines.”

It expresses the hope that human suffering and confusion are not pointless. There is meaning in tragedy and chaos, it suggests; and good may come from even the most brutal acts of evil…. What good, what meaning, could possibly be found here?

There are probably at least as many answers to those questions as there are people to ask them. For The Heinz Endowments, though, at least part of the answer lies in a compelling reminder of why we do what we do.

Too bad.

but what concerns me is the story that Jim Jordan "convinced" Kerry to vote for the Iraqi resolution--apparently with an eye towards the fall election with Bush, but to vote in favor of a resolution permitting Bush to commit troops to Iraq on political grounds is unforgivable, imo. Whether this is true or not I don't know--I hope not.

Kerry's problems as Will Pitt describes are the Iraqi resolution vote but also the time Kerry had to take off the campaign trail due to his cancer surgury as well as his somewhat wobbly appearances at times immediately following resuming his campaigning I think also hurt him.

He comes across as an arrogant A-hole. Sad to see because it was his to lose. I am not saying he is a bad man, his war record cuts him lots of slack. I am pissed at him for his panic attack on Dean, most of which is bull. You can't want to win so bad you help Bush* win.

on the fact that no one but dorks like us will be paying attention to what's happening to his campaign. But folks in NH will be seeing his commercials, and HE hasn't quit yet, so I think they'll be able to get things straight for a big December and January push.

according to another GD thread.

:silly:

;-)

I look forward to the glee and rejoicing on this board.

...because he's a witch. Shut up or he'll turn you into Newt!

:bounce:

I have a feeling that Lieberman will pull out right before the primaries---probably within four weeks.

I don't know enough about the inner workings of campaigns to even start to convince you. All I know is that he's still John Kerry. And I hear his new people are very good.

I just keep remembering the people in my congressman's office saying that they'd vote for kerry because he was the de facto frontrunner.....right before Dean came up fast on the rise. I called them two weeks ago, and they said they were quietly thinking of endorsing Dean.

conversely Dean has now set up very high ones.
And don't forget, Kerry's not in this alone- he has 2 very capable women assisting his campaign right now: Shaheen and Cahill.
I don't see where Kerry can lose anything here, and besides, only the dorks are paying attention.

make his move. His new ad is gripping. When I saw it, I thought, "How is this guy NOT the frontrunner??"

Kerry has dumped some baggage. He knows what he has to do.

Get ready, New Hampshire, for the Comeback Kid.

What happened?

I'm still dating...

But that is the point, and I should have have noted it: Even as a big Edwards supporter, I respect Kerry tremendously, and want to see him run the campaign he deserves to run.

Kerry has incredible gifts that I hope he will continue to share with this country. He's a leader, and his supporters should not give up the "ship".

But I think a lot of people, including myself, are shocked at how badly things have been run in his campaign.
Kerry has the skill to rush right back to the top, and I expect to see him surge soon.

The comeback is certainly a sweet possibility.

when I was on Tsongas' staff in 1992, Clinton is finished Gennifer Flowers sank him, the real threat is from...shit I forget who the real threat was....

He does not have one one-thousanth of the personal gifts Clinton had at his disposal.

or perhaps it's too intangible for words? My simple take on any comparison is that Kerry would make a far better President than Clinton.

Bill Clinton was a one-in-one-hundred-years talent on the campaign trail. It *is* intangible; it's a something that Clinton had as a retail campaigner that Kerry nor anyone else has right now. Clinton came back in New Hampshire based entirely upon his unique strengths, and how he put them to use in the last weeks of that race. I love John Kerry, but Kerry does not have that kind of talent.

Now I am mad. One One Thousandth ? Personal gifts ? Please explain. Are you talking about Clinton's natural gifts ? Clinton has more than a thousand times more ? Me thinks you have been working much, much to hard.

Bill Clinton was a one-in-one-hundred-years talent on the campaign trail. It *is* intangible; it's a something that Clinton had as a retail campaigner that Kerry nor anyone else has right now. Clinton came back in New Hampshire based entirely upon his unique strengths, and how he put them to use in the last weeks of that race. If you don't see that, you missed the last ten years of politics, my friend. Clinton was a generational phenomenon.

I love John Kerry, but Kerry does not have that kind of talent.

he had the unions sewed up? but you are right about history putting the doubt into Pitts' title. Krry may be taking water but i'm not ready to launch the lifeboats.

Dean would have to slow down to allow that to happen, and he won't do that. Dean starts off running, picks up speed to a sprint and then makes a mad dash to the finish. Kerry did too much "pacing" himself and as a result, nothing's working for him. So like a bonehead he sets forth the crumbling of his own campaign and puts himself in the impossible position of having to try to catch up even more to someone who already can't be caught.

Kerry is screwed, and that's all there is to it.

... aren't you worried that Dean might 'peak' too soon? LOL

He just keeps getting better. He's seriously got the energy and stamina of a truckload of 8 year olds with ADHD. I don't know how he does it, but just know that he does. He wants the job and it shows. But as much as he wants the job, he wants to do the work to do the job well. He's always been driven that way.

with Geph pulling ahead i'd think Dean should focus there for awhile?

Polls naturally fluctuate and don't really say too much. The next poll will show a drop for Gephardt again because of the upcoming union endorsements for Dean. I'm not sure if Gephardt bought "the list" in Iowa or not, but I know Dean did. The list is a compilation of names, addresses and phone numbers of caucus goers. Dean has been reaching out to those people on the list for over a year now. He's also got a lot of new people involved. Looking at polls in Iowa can be a little tricky because it's not a primary and things work differently. No matter how good or bad Gephardt does in Iowa, he's not going to cut the mustard overall because he's just not getting much support elsewhere.

but that's the one thing you can bet that juggernaut won't be doing.

Kerry will be regrouping, ie: getting back to square one, while Dean is constantly opening up new ground to add to his impressive grassroots effort.

It's disappointing, but Kerry is toast.

Just stay close. If he comes in second, there's life left in the Kerry campaign. Every primary and caucus this year distributes delegates proportionally. If Dean wins NH by two or three points (say 33% to 30%), that won't make a significant difference. Kerry would still get 30% of the delegates.

It's only if he starts losing badly, as in double-digit losses in multiple primaries that he needs to just call it quits.

I'll say one thing about Dean that all the candidates need to observe and learn from: the guy has PASSION and he is a FIGHTER. That's the thing that has disappointed me the most regarding Kerry's poor showing. There's no passion, there's no fire, except when it's attacking someone else who has the audacity to come from nowhere and take frontrunner status.

There is another candidate that has Kerry beat, even in fund raising:

Is the General really leading Kerry in fundraising?

I really like Clark and I'll be voting for him in my state's primary, but it seems to me like Kerry is going to do better than Clark in NH.

Kerry's entire campaign strategy is based on winning New Hampshire. He cannot survive a loss there. Neither can Dean.

And the good guys won. Kerry's ear has too long been bent towards the DC advisors who love their job, and not enough towards Boston, where his advisors love him. Kerry has firmly put himself in the hands of people he trusts, and people who trust him. Don't expect Kerry to be shaken - he thrives on the tough odds. You are going to see a much more confident Kerry.

Remember Paul Newman talking with George C. Scott at the end of the Hustler?

"How shall I play that one, Bert? Play it safe?
That's the way you always told me to play it,
safe, play the percentage. Well, here we
go ... fast and loose.

One ball, corner pocket.

Yeah, percentage players die broke too, don't
they, Bert?"

Shit, personally I'd do everything I could to spend more time in Boston.

And funny, I wouldn't have felt this way a few months ago.

If I had a vote it would first go to Kucinich, and of the front runners, I still like Dean. And though Kerry alienated me early with his war vote, I've come to regard that as a knee-jerk response which does a grave injustice to his decades-long record of honorable service.

I'd like to see Kerry get back on track. He deserves better.

All I wanted to hear was for him to speak 3 simple words about the IWR: "I was wrong." Had he uttered those words, I might have been a supporter today. he didn't, so I'm not.

You lost your chance, John, until after the convention gives you the nod--- if you even make it that far. :shrug:

Honestly, in the conversations that I have around the water cooler, with family, and with other activists, they are not obsessing about Kerry or Gephardt's IWR vote. Many of my friends like those two men. (btw, nobody talks about Edwards or Joe Lie).

That is the way it is playing in Ohio. I must admit, though, that Dean's large number of volunteers would make a difference if Ohio is still in play during the primaries.

on DU. I'm disappointed you are bailing. And I don't enjoy saying that because you have been great in the fight against the right wing. I think you are too quick to abandon the ship. But we all must do what we think is right so..........

I knew it was coming from someone. Read my post again. I don't say "I was a Kerry supporter." It says "I am a Kerry supporter." I am abandoning nothing, of course. I am bailing on nothing, of course. You'd know that if you read the thing. Assessment is not bailing. Assessment is not abandoning ship. Assessment is assessment. RIF.

I love you to death Will, but I thought you'd have a little more faith. :-(

I can also make assessments without having my faith, loyalty or whatever questioned.

obviously it's there- you are still supporting Kerry. I just refuse to have a defeatist attitude about the events of the last few days and give more fodder to the other campaigns out there. New Hampshire is not the be all end all of the primary season.

He's behind. We have to admit it. But he's not lost. Far from it.

Not many ways to spin that. Sorry if I misunderstood,

on this exact topic.

He didn't say anywhere that he doesn't support Kerry anymore or is going to start supporting someone else. He does sound really disappointed in the mess, but that's all I read.

a little more than you want to acknowledge.

Gephardt: 22% (not the 27% you "report")
Dean: 21% (not the 20% you "report")
Kerry: 9% (not the 15% you "report")

http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=748

Instead of trying to extrapoloate Iowans' desire for a pro-war or anit-war candidate from numbers pulled out of the sky, why not just consult a real poll?

The Iowa Poll shows 39 percent of likely caucus participants believe the only Democratic candidate who can defeat Bush is one who opposed the war from the beginning. But another 29 percent say it will take a candidate who supported the war to win the presidency next year. The remaining 32 percent are unsure.

The poll also shows 61 percent of likely caucus participants were mostly or strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, and anti-war sentiment among this group has grown even more in recent weeks.

Even among the 38 percent who initially favored the war to at least some degree, more than half now say they look with less favor on the conflict.

http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21906001.html

A lto fo people don't like this war. They don't want to vote for anyone who supported it either.

Julie

for people who don't think it's possible to oppose the war, and yet support someone that voted for the IWR, Kennedy is living proof that it's possible.

Hardly a ringing endorsement. Both MA statemen. One oldtimer to another. professional courtesy. meaningless.

Most people supported that war, most people still want to succeed in Iraq, most people aren't upset about that vote at all.

It's a phony, made up media issue to go after Kerry. There's no logic to it whatsoever. How else do you explain Gephardt's lead in Iowa? How do you explain people still willing to support Hillary?

Pardon my taking exception, but I belive the Constitution to be a very rational reason.

200 years of various military actions taken by Presidents, some with Congressional votes, some without. There isn't any reason to hold this one vote to any different standard than 200 years of history, it's irrational.

Congress declared war in December 1941, which gave Roosevelt the authority to engage in military action. D-Day wasn't until May 1944. Roosevelt had the authority to conduct military action, he also had the responsibility to do anything to avert military action if it were at all possible.

Kerry is not responsible for George Bush's failures. It is a made up, irrational attack on Kerry for no particular reason.

Read the Constitution, and get back to me. Try Article , Section 8, for starters--- no unequivocal language there that I can see:

"...To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;..."

There was nothing new about this resolution, nothing at all. To hold Kerry to a different standard than any President or Congressman has been held in 200 years is outrageous. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Especially for people who would have voted for him otherwise.

... if you believe the Constitution means what it says. Were Dick Durbin and Robert Byrd 'irrational', too? :eyes:

I highly doubt it. Kennedy doesn't.

Durbin and Byrd can have their opinion on the Constitution and when the President can use military forces. Many others disagreed with them. Clinton disagreed with them when he used forces in Kosovo. 200 years of history disagrees with them.

This is a made up issue to attack Kerry and noone else. The same standard isn't being applied against anybody else and there's no evidence to suggest it would be applied against anybody else.

I know many people who hold this same issue against Gephart and Edwards. You cannot simply wave your hands and dismiss it as a non-issue, because it is an issue for a substantial number of Democrats--- witness the Kerry, Edwards and Gephart performances in poll after poll after poll here on DU.

What's happening out there in America shows this war vote is a nonissue. Clark went back and forth on it and his supporters really don't care. It's not an issue for him. Gephardt and Edwards don't get hammered by the media and public on it.

It's a made up issue against Kerry and we're losing the candidate that MANY people, on DU even, have repeatedly said would be the best President.

It makes no sense and it's incredibly sad for the country and the world.

They don't have the national stature in the media that Kerry does/did up until this point. IF they achieve that status you can bet your ass it will become an issue. I personally hold Gephardt MORE accountable than Kerry for the whole fiasco. He sabotaged the negotiations that were going on by supporting Bush without even telling some of the people in his own caucus. He is beneath contempt.

They hound Kerry. It's the only thing they have on him so they've turned it into a major issue.

I'm talking about America out there. I perfectly understand people who are just innately anti-war, the anger over the vote is understandable. But to allow an election to be swayed against one candidate over that vote, and none of the rest, is a real shame and that's what I'm talking about. Especially those who prefer him as President, won't support him now, but will end up having to support someone who had the same position on this war anyway.

They hound Kerry because HE HAS UP UNTIL THIS POINT HAD MORE NATIONAL STATURE AS A CANDIDATE THAN EITHER EDWARDS OR GEPHARDT. Get it? They'll get it just as bad as him if they achieve that stature.

Get it? The media isn't running around hounding him on the vote.

It's a MADE UP issue to attack Kerry with.

It's only part of the picture at this point. GET IT?! It's not made up...keep telling yourself that but it won't make it so.

Leading in any one of those states makes you a frontrunner. Gephardt and even Edwards, aren't getting hounded on this vote. And I damn well guarantee you, they won't be.

.... Kerry is getting hounded on this issue because with his past HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. With his past many find it hard to believe he did NOT know better and have to assume his vote was a political expediency.

We can debate all day whether or not that was the case, but bet on this, that is what many people believe.

He'd be *much* better off by saying, "I was wrong; please forgive me." than he would be engaging in these tortuous 'nuances' of his.

People don't know Kerry's position on Saddam, Iraq and WMD, and then assume expediency. If they bothered to learn what his position has been all these years, they'd know why he cast this vote.

... * unilateral authority to start a war; you can put a dress on that pig, if you like, but that still won't make it a pretty lady. Sorry, but that's called 'the real world', and 'nuance' won't help, because people will ask whether he did, or did not support giving * that power.

Yep, that's what he did. That's what Congress has been doing for 200 years. Except when the President uses the military on his own authority.

Yep, he gave Bush authority to start a war in 2 very specific situations. The war Bush started didn't adhere to either one of them.

"Nuance" it however you like, it doesn't change that fact.

You're throwing in the media buzz word 'nuance' in the mix. Just like people throw all the rest of the Iraq war Kerry bullshit in the mix.

He voted to authorize a war and you want to know why. I told you why. I told you it was to enforce UN resolutions OR protect U.S. security. We always have the right to protect ourselves. So that leaves enforcing UN resolutions. What resolutions. The ones requiring Saddam to disarm. Why. Because the UN needs to get serious about weapons of mass destruction around the world and have the teeth to enforce WMD resolutions against any country. Did it work. Yes. We got inspectors in the country and now know Iraq didn't have WMD. That's more than we knew a year ago. Did Bush need to go to war over it, doesn't look like it. But he wanted a war and he lied to get it. This is Bush's war. He didn't need to start it.

Just like when FDR was given the declaration of war in 1941 and didn't invade Europe until 1944. If events had changed in between those times, FDR would have had a responsibility to not follow through with military force. That is the President's job.

How many times do you want to go through this?

The *only* legal way for Bush to invade Iraq was through the UN, since there never was any 'imminent threat', either before or during the war. JK, however, gave the President the power to make war at his pleasure. This is hardly a novel concept, as the Lincoln quote I have posted repeatedly demonstrates.

JK, JE and RG all voted to do something the Constitution does not permit them to do--- unilaterally abdicate their Constitutional responsibility to declare war.

Get it now?

That's what always happens after Congress gives its approval for military force to a President. After that, the President makes the decision if and when that military action should begin. Military action is only used to protect U.S. interests or U.S. security, that's US policy. Lying to go to war isn't and that's what Bush chose to do.

We were attacked on December 7th, 1941, in case you don't recall. the situations are not even remotely analogous. :eyes:

The process is the same. You say Kerry is wrong because he didn't respect the Constitutional process. The process is the same. The Congress authorizes military action, the President is in charge of the military and decides when that action will take place. Or even if it will. The President doesn't HAVE to use the military just because Congress authorized it. This war is on BUSH.

Kerry did not have the constitutional authority to grant * a power the Constitution says may only be exercised by the Congress. The grant of power was overbroad. He should have voted 'no' on *any* resolution that was not limited to *new* UNSC-authorized action or purely defensive action, in response to an attack or imminent attack.

You can nuance it all you like, but it doesn't change what the Constitution says.

That's what the IWR said. Enforce UN resolutions. Only the UN has the authority to decide on military action to enforce UN resolutions, having that in the IWR would mean Bush should have gotten UN authority for military action. Which is also what he said he'd do. Which is also why he lied about imminent threat, to kick in the other part of the IWR. He lied, it's his war.

This thread is becoming too long for a dialup user, which is what I am. We simply disagree--end of story.

was why he wasn't coming forward with all his secrets about the BFEE.

I work in the public 12 hours a day, 6 days a week; I own and operate a very busy small business that gets a wide cross-section of the public as customers. I hear people say many times a day that, "That (Kerry/Edwards/Gephart) is a nice guy, and I like a lot of what he says, but the Iraq war vote thing...", or words to that effect. I hear this from Democrats, Independents and Republicans.

You can pretend it's not an issue, just like Sen. Kerry has pretended it's not an issue--- but it's an issue.

I own and operate a small business too and I hear people angry at Bush over this mess. Not the Democrats.

But they're also leery of those who enabled him, like the 3 I mentioned.

There's no evidence that the voters are holding this against Gephardt or Edwards. There's no evidence to show the voters would hold it against Hillary.

It's a made up issue and we're in danger of losing the candidate most Democrats prefer, the one who is most true to our Democratic values, and the one who is most likely to beat George Bush because of it.

It pisses me off and it pisses off a lot of other DUers and if you think that DUers are the ONLY ones pissed off by it then you really are deluding yourself. Like someone else said, trying to ignore it as an issue does NOT mean it is not an issue with a lot of people.

And I'm unaware of any poll that has directly asked the question about each candidate. Care to give a citation for such a poll?

What would be the point of a poll such as you suggest? People are making up their minds and supporting candidates. Gephardt is winning in Iowa. Hillary skyrockets as a candidate. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

.. to demonstrate whether there is any empirical evidence whatsoever to back up your bald assertion.

But speaking of polls on this issue, I do just happen to have some evidence to back up my position...

"...The Iowa Poll shows 39 percent of likely caucus participants believe the only Democratic candidate who can defeat Bush is one who opposed the war from the beginning. But another 29 percent say it will take a candidate who supported the war to win the presidency next year. The remaining 32 percent are unsure.

The poll also shows 61 percent of likely caucus participants were mostly or strongly opposed to the war from the beginning, and anti-war sentiment among this group has grown even more in recent weeks.

Even among the 38 percent who initially favored the war to at least some degree, more than half now say they look with less favor on the conflict..."

Source: http://www.dmregister.com/news/stories/c4789004/21906001.html

And...

"...Respondents would give more of their support (42%) to a Democratic candidate who opposed the war in Iraq than a candidate who supported the war (32%)...."

Source: http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=748

Ball to you. :)

"we're in danger of losing the candidate most Democrats prefer"

People are always posting that they think Kerry would be the best President. It's repeated on the media about mainstream voters all the time. This was supposed to be easy for him because he had so much support.

Then the media started in on the war vote.

'People' also post all the time that Dean, or Kucinich, etc., would be the best candidate; nonetheless, every time there's an actual preference poll, JK winds up somewhere around 4th, 5th or 6th.

Dean and Kucinich always win. Then the exact same people post how Kerry would be the best President. It makes no sense.

.. a dean or Kucinich supporter ever make the statement that JK would make 'the best President'; I often see many of them (myself included) say that he would make a 10000% better President than *.

Over and over again. Somebody even came to the Kerry forum and posted it. Kerry would make the best President but you need to have a better campaign. Well if people already see he would be the best President, what more is there to do? Get people to stop being 'me tooers' and running off on tangents about made up issues, that's what.

I say again, I seldom, if *ever* see that.

WE (obviously I don't include YOU in the WE) started in on the war vote when he gave a ridiculously convoluted senate floor speech where he condemned it and then turned right around and justified voting for it. It's been downhill since then...the media is simply amplifying a lot of the dissatisfaction that is out there with regards to Kerry. If your attitude is typical of Kerry and his campaign then it's no wonder why they are so frustrated...they just don't get why people could possibly be so upset about it.

That's just the kind of hyped up bullshit I'm talking about.

And you bet I have attitude when somebody is being smeared and has done absolutely nothing to deserve it.

At one moment you are making the argument that most Americans don't care about the war vote -- that they support the war. Then you turn around and say that the media is pursuading people to be against Kerry because of his vote for the war.

If most Americans are for the war and the media is playing up Kerry's vote for the war, wouldn't that translate to greater support for Kerry?

No, because they're making the war vote a confusing issue, an expediency issue. They're making it into a big deal that it isn't.

... 'a big issue', and apparently a lot of other people do, too.

We already did the Constitution argument. Want to try a new spin?

It's not a case of "Article 1 does give Congress the sole power to declare war, BUT..."; there is no comma after 'war'--- just a period. It is a well-written, simple, declarative English sentence.

The Constitutional issue is not a 'side issue' or distraction--- it is the fundamental issue--- period.

You diverted off to something else. 200 years of U.S. history says you, and Durbin and Byrd, are wrong.

This was not Korea, or Desert Storm 1, etc. This is "Gulf of Tonkin" Vietnam--- unconstitutional as hell.

You are all over the place on this. I feel like I've been watching a tennis match, just reading your posts.

Hilarious.

Let me assure you, though, tha it IS a big issue -- a HUGE issue, in fact a "do not pass Go" issue -- for some of us. For Padraig the issue seems to center around the Constitution. For me it's the war itself: blood, death, maiming (psychological and physical), dismemberment, destruction, displacement, SUFFERING, all of it for absolutely no good reason.

It's a showstopper for me with all the candidates. But for Kerry it's more than that: For me, who lived through the Vietnam era and still carry many of those emotional wounds and scarring (and for me not NEARLY so much as people who suffered far more due because of the war), Kerry has become one of the old men he once so honorably protested against. Of ALL the people in Congress, he was among those of whom we rightly should have been able to expect MORE.

His betrayal was all the more so because of his history.

I will not vote for him or any of the warmongers in the General unless they renounce their IWR vote. Any of them still have the chance to do that, to do for a change what is right. It's up to them.

Eloriel

How dare you bring logic to bear! :P

"phony, made-up media issue" my ass! Tell that to the millions of people who called and lobbied congress, begging them NOT to go along with Bush's little wag-the-dog adventure.

Why isn't it an issue with Hillary or Gephardt? Why just Kerry?

It's completely made up and we're going to lose the best President we've had in decades because of it.

But you don't hear as much about because Hillary's NOT RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT and Gephardt hasn't had the perceived potential front-runner stature that Kerry has had in the past.

It is not an issue with either one of them. Gephardt IS seen as a frontrunner more every day. He's leading in Iowa. If Hillary entered tomorrow she'd immediately be the frontrunner and the war vote would only be important to a handful of people.

Kerry is being uniquely targeted for that vote and it's ridiculous.

after supporting Bush in so many things. Kerry wasn't... everyone expected Kerry to vote against it, not so with Gephardt.

Even though he's had that position about Iraq since at least 1997, even though he's been vocal about weapons proliferation in the US and around the world, even though he wants the UN to take the lead on this issue; it's just not at all possible he voted to do just that? Because he despises war, it's not possible that he saw the necessity in this case, to use military force as a last resort if the need to remove these weapons existed in Iraq?

I see that all the time, hell it's probably in this thread. He'd be the best President, he has the best economic, security and foreign policy plans and credentials, he's a true liberal, but...

Then go off on some tangent and it's not always the IWR. Sometimes it's nothing more than wohoo, I like so and so.

If people think Kerry would be the best President, would be an absolutely AWESOME President, they better put aside whatever silliness that has caused them to bash him all these months. We've got a chance to change the world and we better take it.

Look, I like Kerry. If he got the nomination, I'd vote for him inspite of his war vote. But because there are other candidates who were speaking out against the war, as was I, they are my preferences. I also happen to think they have some pretty good plans for the economy, security and foreign policy.

But suppose you are right. Suppose this country is about to pass up an opportunity to elect the best president we could ever have. Well, don't just sit there arguing with a bunch of boobs on the internet who have already shown to be in disagreement with you. Go convince some people who haven't made up their minds yet in the real world. They are out there. Polls show that more than 1 out of 5 haven't made up their minds and even among those who support a particular candidate, most of those supporters are not certain.

If the situation is as dire as you say, plan to spend thanksgiving and Chritmas and any other time you can afford in New Hampshire or Iowa. Tell the Kerry campaign you want to go door-to-door in support of JFK and I'm sure they'd set you up with some buttons, some bumper stickers and some flyers.

If you can't do it in NH or IO, do it in your town -- every day. That's the kind of help Kerry needs right now and that's the kind of action you should be taking if you really think Kerry's election is of paramount importance. Good luck to you - seriously.

Quit hectoring those of us here, because most of us are firmly behind whatever candidate we have chosen; your time arguing with us is much like a moth's efforts against a lightbulb--- understandable, but not terribly productive.

Call people, knock on doors, raise $$$---- whatever you can do best, because that is what JK desperately needs now, if he is to survive.

As HFishbine said, best of luck---seriously. :hi:

...a bullet for the anti-Dean team. He has nothing to lose, and he has enough money to run a kick-ass NH campaign. So now he can have a single purpose: take Dean down a big notch. Call him out as a libertarian. Provoke him into petulance. Go through the Dean pro-big business VT record with a fine-toothed comb. Argue about health care. If it ends up working, it might be the thing to get him back in the campaign. If he doesn't, well, he was leaving anyway, and he will have done a favor for the Democrats who probably have a better chance of beating Bush.

In fact, a while back I speculated that the candidates were all having a hard time confronting Dean because of the nature of the media and the desire not to offend the Deaniacs. Well, now the Dems have a candidate who probably has a grudge and who has the resources, and has nothing to lose.

It will be very interesting to see if Kerry takes a conservative path, operating on the assumption he can get back in it, or if he goes in country against Dean.

It will just prop up Dean more.

If it's the truth, you think Dean could survive it?

Kerry might just be the most 'liberal' Democrat among the contendors for the nomination, his record is still as solid as it was a few days ago. If this were Lieberman or Gephardt or some other more malleable Democrat, I might agree with you, but it's not.

Stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't the fact that Mary Beth Cahill is taking over - someone connected to the Kennedy campaigns - some sort of boon?

and Susan Estrich's legacy needs some avenging.

but his IWR vote made him radioactive, and Kerry has not helped himself one bit by trying to defend it.

on edit: spelling

And I personally cannot fault him forever for voting 'yes'. I can see why he would vote yes, and it's not just for political expediency. If I knew Kerry to be a warmonger, I'd have stayed away from him forever after that vote, but he's not. The experience of combat and war stays with someone, and I can't imagine anyone making those decisions as a Senator lightly.

Why couldn't the co-founder of Vietnam Vets Against the War see Kovic's point of view?

I don't know why Ron Kovic or John Kerry don't see eye-to-eye about the IWR vote. What I do know is that when you compress six months of national furor and context down to a yes/no vote in the Senate, you're bound to get distortion. The Vietnam war was already happening when Kerry came home and started VVAW, and had the benefit of experience and hindsight. At the time of the vote, the War in Iraq was still hypothetical, and in matters of national security, it is always better to err on the side of caution. I don't believe that justifies the tens of thousands dead, but no one had a crystal ball.

Uh, no.

If Kerry's was the deciding vote, yes, that would have been difficult. But he had plenty of cover to work with, from the millions of people in the streets screaming NO, to the fact that the authorization he voted for fell short of what he himself says he was looking for, to his record as an activist anti-war vet. Kerry was being politically opportune, and that ruined him in the eyes of many, just like Liebersquat, Gephardt and Edwards are also tainted and ruined (personally, I blame Gephardt more than any of them). Rather than seeming principled, Kerry's vote looks to me like he turned his back on his record to back an illegal war led by a drunk and his enablers.

And at this late date, with all the bush lies exposed, Kerry still can't seem to say "I was wrong." More opportunism - he's worried things might improve for bush in Iraq and he's now hedging his bets.

At least Kucinich and Dean (and CMB & Al?) had the balls to oppose bushco's imperialism when it was difficult to do so. The feeble four didn't and STILL don't.

Buh-bye, John. Take Holy Joe with ya.

Quite frankly, I don't see what the protests have to do with this. A Senator should not make his decisions about war based on a mob.

I agree that a Senator should for the most part vote his heart, that's what representative democracy allows for. But when the voters you represent take to the streets en masse, they amount to more than a focus group. They're sending a message. If you listened to their message to "go to Washington" when they gave you their votes, why are you ignoring their message when they take to the streets? How often do Americans take to the streets these days? Not often. Being elected to a 6-year term as a US Senator doesn't mean you ignore the wishes of your constituency for 5 years, 9 months and start listening just in time for the next election, does it?

I'll say this in Kerry's defense, at least he didn't listen to a pro-war mob when he decided to give bush dictitorial powers. Oh, that's right, there wasn't a pro-war mob. My bad :)!

And, as the IWR-yes voters herd thins, you're going to see their support go to other IWR-yes voters, and to Clark, and not to Kucinich and Dean.

I'll bet money on that.

than John Kerry. That being said, I still think Kerry will get the nomination. I don't support him, largely due to IWR, but when all is said and done, he will prove to be the most unifying candidate.

and Dennis is doing a good job moving away from his anti-choice positions.

Kucinich and Sharpton are FAR more liberal than Kerry.

The Brawley incident was troubling, but given the history of police brutality in NYC, one could understand how Sharpton could make an error in judgement. Granted, I think he's something of an opportunist, but I don't know. I believe he has said he was wrong about it, which is at least an admission of error.

If you want to talk about racist, one could make the argument that the IWR was a racist vote. I certainly believe it was. Kerry knew the justifications for it were BS and he never shrunk from supporting the "sanctions," and there was never a question about the effect they were having. That, IMO, is worse than racist, it's inhuman.

There is a connection between the lying, defamatory character of the Brawley campaign and the role of racialism. Those, like Maddox, Mason and Sharpton, who preach racial animosity and strive for privileges for their particular color or nationality must lie in their presentation of social life. Society is not a collection of warring ethnic tribes; it is fundamentally divided along class lines, between the elite handful who control economic life and the vast majority of working people. Racialists make things up because their conceptions do not correspond to reality.

Brawley elicited sympathy not only from among nationalists at the time of her alleged attack, but no doubt as well from among black people and others outraged over the nature of the crime. If there is something to be learned here, it is the real danger of reacting to such a situation without weighing the facts and making a reasoned analysis. Such an analysis implies having a perspective on society and an understanding of its essential driving forces. Figures like Mason, Maddox and Sharpton, and their counterparts of every color and background, are dangerous individuals. They play on confusion, ignorance and prejudice to advance their own reactionary political aims. The lesson is: beware of demagogues!

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/july1998/braw-j25.shtml

Sharpton is a demagogue. I'm not supporting him, though I do appreciate a lot of what he says, the way he says it, and the issues that he brings up. I do believe he is a racist. But so far as the Brawley case is concerned, I don't know if he knew the girl was lying to begin with and played her advocate anyway, or if he believed she was telling the truth and wanted to bring justice to her and notoriety to himself. If it's the former, it's despicable; if the latter, it was a stupid error in judgement that played havoc with many people's lives. I don't know.

But that's irrelevant anyway. If Sharpton is a demagogue, an opportunist etc. he does his demagoging from a position much further to the left than John Kerry. And even if he focuses unpleasantly and even at times, dishonestly on racial issues, he is still touching on issues that deal more directly with issues of class than an ensconsed member of the power elite like Kerry will ever feel comfortable with doing.

I'm not happy to write that I think you should switch campaigns, but it sounds like it would be best for you.

You know far too much about politics not to realize that aides would quit after the firing of a campaign manager. If a staffer cares more about the campaign manager than the candidate, then the team is better off without them. You also know there will be no shortage of people wanting to fill these roles. Most hired guns would love to put one of these titles on their resume and they're in a win-win situation. If Kerry gets the nomination, they would be heroes. If Kerry doesn't get the nomination, they can blame it on the former staff and have more experience to show for the effort. Anyone new will work incredibly hard knowing they will receive credit any improvements.

Press coverage is a problem. I think that the Kerry camp is going to have to do a lot of work on their own through ads, debates, and interviews. Despite the negative staff changes coverage today, his new ad has been shown many times and he'll be on the Tonight Show later this evening.

I respect anyone being critical of their candidate's campaign, but you seem to be focused only on the negatives. I may be wrong, but I think you're looking for an excuse to change candidates. If you're not comfortable with your decision to support Kerry, then pick someone else.

I said in the first three sentences that it was no surprise that the other staffers left. Do a search on DU to see all the positive things I've posted about this campaign. I am focused on the negatives because, right now, that is all that is coming out in the press. Please spare me your psychoanalysis, and do yourself and your avatar a favor: If and when someone speaks with concern about the Kerry campaign, don't have your first reaction be "Go find another candidate."

Give me a break. I know that no one here is supposed to thwart you, but this thread is ridiculous. The last two threads I can find that you started regarding Kerry have had the titles of "The Kerry campaign has hit the reef, and is sinking" and "The other candidates are driving me towards Dean...again." In the past you certainly did represent Kerry in a positive light, but if you changed your mind, then that's fine.

The media is a problem and I addressed that in my post, but repeating the negativity isn't the best solution either. Kerry spent this morning talking to different veterans groups, this evening he is on the Tonight Show, and his new commercial has been played on every news stations all day. You're choosing to focus on the negatives when there are positives that you could be highlighting.

I would never tell anyone with legitimate concerns or questions to find a new candidate. I'm not be as involved as you, but I speak to college students, host meetups, and have 500+ Kerry supporters on my email list who ask questions and make suggestions all day. I'm happy to help explain anything to any supporter or non-supporter whenever I can.

My post was addressed to you and you alone. You're not confused or uninformed. You know all the issues and all of Kerry's positions. No one here is going to sway your opinions. To me, it appears you want Kerry supporters to prove he is the best candidate (which you know he is). We were set up to fail and give you an excuse for making the switch. So, if you want to support a candidate with a lifetime commitment to public service, then stay with Kerry. If you want a feel good candidate who's ahead in the polls, make the switch.

What are you looking for? What is the purpose of the public teeth-gnashing, the negativity toward Kerry, the expressed attraction for another candidate - that OTHER candidates are driving you toward?

You sound like a man looking for an excuse.

I'm not sure why I'm replying because you clearly didn't read my entire last post. To repeat myself, I explained that no one here could explain campaigns or change your mind because you are already very knowledgeable about Kerry and politics in general. You said it yourself in your initial post, "I'll be happy to have any fellow Kerry supporters convince me I am wrong here. I don't think you can do it, but I'm all ears." That's sounds to me like your pretty set in your opinion.

For the record, if someone else asked me about the changes in the Kerry staff, this is how I would handle it:

I would explain that defectors are the norm when a campaign manager leaves (you already know that).

I would explain how it's for the best to weed out who's loyal (you already know that).

I would explain that Stephanie Cutter has joined his communications team and she's good. She worked for the DNC, Sen. Kennedy and Bill Clinton (you already know that).

I would explain that David Morehouse who has strong PA and union ties is now Communications Director (you already know that).

I would explain how Mary Beth Cahill is an amazing grassroots fundraiser and her work with Emily's List has been tremendously important to women all over the country. I might even mention that The West Wing character, C.J. Cregg, was loosely based on her (you already know that).

Honestly, I can continue, but I won't be telling you anything that you don't already know. You have the facts and need to make your own decision.

Stop with the defeatism!

He's far from dead, and he only gets better from here. I have no idea if that'll be good enough to match Dean's momentum, but my guess is that JK will surprise all the pundits - including the same geniuses who annointed Dubya as untouchable only a few months ago - and put together one helluva rally.

'He has less than 100 days...' vs
'He has more than 3 months...'.

Kerry is a man of substantial achievement and potentially infinite bank account. With no candidate breaking 20% in national polls, some big changes -have- to happen in the next 100 days. Most voters outside NH couldn't name a single Dem Presidential candidate.

NH is a big problem if he loses big. But if he comes close he can do what Bill Clinton did in '90--claim victory because of the marvelous comback, even though he lost.

'He's already cut Dean's lead from 25% to only 14%'. --SPIN

No emotional attachment to Kerry. Just rooting for a fair contest.

Weld: "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."

Weld-who calls the debates a "bloody draw"-says that Kerry successfully attached him to the national Republican Party. (Weld had said some embarrassingly positive things about Newt Gingrich two years earlier.) "The turning point came when he asked me if I'd vote to keep Jesse Helms as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That was a killer."

I asked Weld how he responded. "I ducked it, of course," he said, with a smile. "I mean, I hated Jesse Helms. But what could I do?"

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."

Really.

I hope it works.

Nice try. Really. :eyes:

That Kerry has experience in a national level election? That he has come from behind before? That he is a champion debater?

I reserve the term "spin" for people who proudly display their executive experience - over 600,000 rural folk (no city in sight). Dean should know the difference. He grew up in a city with 7,322,564 people (over 12x the population of Vermont).

His campaign is in disarray, and it has been for some time. I would expect that there will be more defections.

This will be his story for the next few days, and it will competely obliterate any message he is trying to get out. It is very late in the campaign to be doing damage control among staff.

Can he get it together? Maybe. But this isn't a Senat race, it's a national Presidential primary. Every day counts.

Kerry will get spun as a man who has a collapsing campaign staff, and a floundering candidacy. Tomorrow Dean gets the endorsement of the two largest unions in the AFLCIO. Which story would you want?

Just goes to show....dissing your opponents isn't a good strategy.

Getting your message out is.

Frankly, I hate to see this happen to John Kerry. He isn't a bad man.

I have absolutely no sympathy for his supporters however. They have shown themselves to be not worthy.

Nice way to alienate! Good job! Go Dean supporters go!

and Dean is the King of good timing.

Kerry's campaign shake-up won't help with the polls in NH the next few weeks because his campaign is seen in turmoil and Dean is raking in the endorsements and $$$$.

This shake-up comes at a very bad time. To be a world class leader, which is what our President should be, means looking and planning ahead and developing a sound forward thinking strategy. Kerry's change in campaign leadership signals that Kerry should have done a better job picking his campaign leadership staff earlier.

Kerry doesn't have as much "it" as Dean. What is "it"? It is the ability to stir the masses and get them behind you, a presence, a way of carrying yourself and a way of explaining your positions while connecting to the voter.

I believe Kerry means well, is very informed, and knows the system and how to work it in the Senate.

I believe that Kerry has just becomed eclipsed by someone that has "it" more than Kerry does. Dean has captured the hearts and minds of the Democrats (to steal an overused phrase), and that train has left the station well ahead of others, and unless that train derails itself, Kerry is in a no-win situation.

Good luck Will, I know you believe strongly in him as a leader, but I'd be prepared to start on the Dean campaign shortly...

Rock stars don't make for good Presidents. Especially pissy ones.

... we shall see.

May the best man win!

:toast:

We agree again! That's an infrequent occurrence worthy of another :toast:. :hi:

that will be President Dean...

The 'issue du'jour campaign'. Nothing personal, you do what you need to do, but I'll never be on that campaign.

is that what you mean? Why wouldn't you back our nominee??

Kerry has been told to play it safe ... he followed his marching orders ... Kerry was labelled detached, cool and cerebral ... Dean is hot and flamboyant ...

yes, the wheels have come off Kerry's campaign ...

but two directions are now possible ...

one, Kerry is down and out with too far to travel in too little time ... he goes through the motions, takes a beating in New Hampster, and goes home quietly wondering what might have been ...

or two, we get, as he joked in the last debate, "Kerry goes wild" ... Kerry has the capacity to do a much more potent job than he's done thus far on the campaign trail ... Americans love comebacks ... a dead campaign that starts to show a little momentum can get some powerful news coverage ... reporters start saying "just when you thought it was over for Kerry ..." ... now, I personally believe we will see this "new, improved" Kerry over the next few weeks and months ... he is no longer constrained by being afraid to "risk it all" ... he's more free to let it all hang out ...

this does not, however, suggest that he has enough time to turn things around ... the jury is still out on that one ... as to your request to convince you that you're wrong here and you're all ears, allow me to quote one of the truly great American philosophers:

"It ain't over til it's over ..."

Has anyone noticed it's mostly the Dean supporters gleeful about Kerry's troubles, while the Clark supporters are staying out of it? That would be a silly reason for me to switch to Clark -- I have other reasons for planning to do so -- but it's veddy eenteresteeng.

We'll see what happens with Edwards, who also impresses me, but Clark and his people have been thoroughly decent to Kerry and his people. Don't think we haven't noticed.

We have also noticed.

...because Kerry's being a little shit to Dean and will be until his campaign finally collapses out from beneath him. Just a tip.

Later.

RJS

I truly take no 'joy' in Sen. Kerry's implosion; he is a good and effective speaker when he is 'on message', but that message is not "I'm not Howard Dean". I hope he wises up, or he's done for...

...through his own efforts. He could stop his crap at any time, but he won't. So yeah, I'm giggling at NOT HOWARD DEAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! sinking. Shoot me.

Later.

RJS

I agree that he's spent two months on that message, and look where it's gotten him. :shrug: Lord knows, I've been as pissed about it as anyone has, but Sen. Kerry has value to this party and this race--- I just hope he comes to his senses and realizes that that value does not consist of daily bashing Gov. Dean.

:hi:

...ever heard that expression about slim and none, and slim leaving town? Yeah.

Later.

RJS

Could be. :shrug:

Very early on, I thought Kerry would be a great candidate. Now it has been some time since I joined the Dean camp (March 2003 to be exact), but I still felt Kerry would be among my top choices, along with Clark. But if he cannot even hold his primary campaign apparatus together, that doesn't bode well for his potential skills as a chief executive. It is really quite surprising.

and this from a man who volunteered for his Senate reelection

sorry pal

of the press and the nation . . . don't know exactly what that is, but he might try . . .

- announcing that the Kerry administration will get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11 and why, and in a very public way;

- come out swinging against "corporate governance"

- ask Bill Clinton to commit as his Secretary of State or UN Ambassador

- attack the Patriot Act as un-American, and announce that he will ask Congress to repeal it

just off the top of my head . . . anyone have other/better ideas? . . . I like Kerry and would like to see him turn this around, but it's going to take something bold and brassy to do it . . .

Or the coke. Or Harken.

May not be the classiest approach, but I'd give him a rebel yell.

Now there are some issues, DrF! :toast:

do something to help?

Did you ever write a significant profile of him? Did you ever explain to people how it's no small thing that intel folks were lining up behind Kerry? There has to be a greater reason for their trust.

The media never focused on Kerry's policies and ideas. They never gave him the time when any endorsement that had significance post 9-11 occurred, like the Fire Fighters or Gary Hart. They were given the access to the stories, the stories were pushed by the campaign, but the media took a decided pass.

Who would make the best president, Will? Who can hit the ground running on the most significant issues the world will be facing in 2005? You have tremendous talent....What are you doing to help?

That makes me the craziest of anything. People who say he'd be the best President of all the candidates, but turn around and do everything they can to destroy him. :crazy:

Dean has had way more gaffes than any other candidate, yet they treat him like Bush and Kerry like Gore.

except pump him up here, pester his campaign to no avail to give me an interview that would have been highly favorable, and run dozens of stories about him on truthout. Nope. I've done nothing at all.

You've done your best and I think all BLM is maybe trying to say is don't give up so quickly.

On the other hand, as an editor/publisher/writer at Truthout (whatever your exact hat is), you have an obligation to report Truth as you see it.

Thanks for everything you've done. And by the way, a few people have given you a pump up at the Kerry blog as well, me included! In fact, I'll go do it again.

I must have missed it.

I was sincere in my post, Will, and not being sarcastic at all. There is something very odd about the media's treatment of Kerry and the way they stay away from major positive pieces about him. It's Gore redux, and I think it has to do with the POLICY team he's formed and NOT the political team. You don't hear Hart or Wilson much on any national news shows anymore do you?

I've been watching cable today and the big story hasn't been about the resignations, but about the new Kerry ad. Fortunately, it's an excellent ad that I think brings Democrats back down to earth - at least Democrats who want to see Bush evicted next November - that Kerry will not only take on Bush, but he can beat him on every single issue.

And not to flame, but it's too early to say that Kerry is cooked. I honestly like Dean, but I don't think he's ready for a presidential candidacy and I expect that between now and Iowa he's going to have several more Confederate flag moments that will start an exodus to a candidate who can actually win the general. My loyalty isn't to any one candidate, it's to getting that bastard out of the White House. I think a Kerry/Clark ticket would sail to the finish line, and that's all I care about. So, I'm not giving up on Kerry.

All I've seen in the media today is the ad. :-)

When he goes after *, no one does it better; but to paraphrase JK himself, "I'm not Howard Dean" is not a message.

To insiders, it's a HUGE thing, but most primary voters aren't insiders. If he gets the new crew in fast enough, he should at least be able to maintain.

If he does well in NH after all this it will make him a "comeback kid" and get media attention.

I don't think he'll pull it off.

I started out pinning my hopes on Dean. When Clark became a possibility I crossed my fingers, and since he entered the race I haven't looked back. But if I had to point to the guy who's carried the torch over the long run, whose credentials are beyond reproach, the guy who's earned the respect of anybody who calls themself a Democrat - that's John Kerry.

The 6 1/2 minutes he took to explain the vote on IWR was the iceberg for his titanic.

He has spent way too much time carping about Dean and not nearly enough crowing about Kerry. This syndrome is generally the generally symbolic for the final throes of a campaign.

Maybe someone can slap the paddles on this and resusitate the campaign, but I expect not.

Poor guy

<>

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

n/t