POLL: Your View of John Kerry- Positive or Negative?

In the wake of the events of today and seeing John Kerry slamming Bush on the floor of the Senate, in the papers, and on the news how is your view of John Kerry?

After the actions over the past months, the past few weeks and even the past few days, do you view Kerry positively or negatively. Does it seem to you that John Kerry is living up to the promise he made on November 3,2004 that he would continue the fight?

I am NOT asking if you think he should run for President again I am simply asking is Kerry an asset or liability to the Democratic party in you eyes.

ON EDIT: *If You View him Negatively Please respond in short as to Why*

A few days ago, I didn't. :shrug:

neutral?

He'd make a great leader; I simply don't know if he has what it takes to get there though.

His demeanor and energy on the Larry King show tonight right after Shrub's speech...reminded me of the Presidential personna he presented at the Debates. He was looking REAL Presidential.

Sigh.

That really is a problem when you run for higher office.

I think he's doing an awesome job as a U.S. Senator!

:toast:

I'm glad he framed his poll in that way. ASIDE from 2008...

We talk about 2008 too much here sometimes. I wanna say fuck 2008 alot of the time, because it's such a distorting way to look at people.

and he did it again today. Thank you President Kerry.

but I think he is certainly an asset to our party and would have been been perfectly fine as president.

I have a love for the guy. He's not perfect, but goddammit he's a damn fine Democrat and I DO hope he runs in 2008.

Have given not even a hint of a reason as to why they have a negative opinion of Kerry. That leads me to believe 2 things: One They are Freepers and if they left their name and a reason that would probably be kinda obvious, or 2 they view him negatively and just dont have an answer.

I respect everyones opinion here but if your going to vote negatively at least give a quick post as to why.

OK, I'll bite...why should I have to state why I voted neg...if the ones voting pos...don't have to do the same?
Sorry...Kerry doesn't impress me, and never did..period..I am anything but a freeper...and my man says the country will start to support Democrats when Democrats start to stand up for one another...so let's leave it at that..
windbreeze

and he was little help to Conyers when the Ohio recount was going on, It seemed like Blackwell had the recount totally ubder control. Kerry couldn't even help himself?

They would have us believe that countless millions of People around the globe felt the election was a fraud.

Kerry quote: "I believe the OBL tape released prior to the election is what cost me the election" -- Until I heard that statement, I would have walked from Florida to Washington in protest for John Kerry, but never again. Fool me once...

and I'll explain why..

While he has been a more-than-decent senator until 2001, since then, he has done things that have diminished my opinion of him.

1. Voted to enable Bush to make war in Iraq. I do not believe that he truly supported the war in iraq. I know he bravely spoke out against Vietnam; I also know he voted against the first gulf war in 1991. It baffles me as to why he would vote for the IWR. The circumstances led me to suspect that the deciding factor was that he did not want to endanger his budding presidential bid, and he saw a vote against the IWR as potential harm to his "electability." Apparenly the concept of breaking international law and the massive impending deaths of innocent civilians and US troops, were less of a concern to him than his presidential ambitions. I would rather that he just have supported the war in principle as Lieberman did, rather than acting in a callous, selfish way.

2. Kerry has refused to apologize for voting for IWR. In fact he said that, knowing what he knows now, he still WOULD have voted for it. That does not score him points in my book. You'd think one would have learned from the disaster that unfolded following the fall of Saddam, but apparently Kerry has not (or at least won't admit it).

3. Kerry made his entire campaign essentially about his Vietnam service. It was about his service in a war he thought was immoral (who would be proud of taking part in something they thought was wrong?). there was nothing about his courageous questioning of the war. Vietnam has nothing to do with what is going on today. I've come to the conclusion that nobody cares about what happened 30 years ago. they are worried about what is going on today. Because Kerry put all his political eggs in one basket, the swift boat liars essentially killed his campaign singlehandedly.

4. Kerry conceded the election in Ohio, despite the massive irregularities, and despite the fact that not all of the votes were properly counted at the time. I did not ask Kerry to claim that he really won, but I wished he would have stood up against the very real shenanigans that took place in that state. but instead, Kerry apparently worried about his image and decided to fold up shop (except for maybe some stuff behind the scenes that didn't do very much).

5. Kerry was absent when Congress challenged the Ohio vote. Apparently he was more worried again about his image than doing what is right. As a major spokesman for the Dems, he could have brought a lot of attention to the issue.

6. When Kerry finally spoke up about what happened in Ohio, it was mere days AFTER the presidential vote had been accepted by Congress, when the media was less likely to cover it, and essentially when it would have done no good and few would have heard about it.


kerry has done some good things too. Voting against rice and gonzales, and his DSM letter. But he has a lot more to do to get me to respect him.

he has to stop triangulating and start being genuine.

Look at Howard Dean. Dean doesn't care what the Repugs say about him. He is going to say what he thinks, and he is going to call out the Repugs when they are wrong. that is what people admired about Dean. Unfortunately in the end, they thought Dean's bravery was too much of a risk in regards to an election we HAD to win.

The key to winning is to have confidence in ourselves and our ideas. Don't let the repugs tell us what is important and what is moral. We should tell THEM these things. Kerry hopefully will learn that lesson and maybe his 2008 campaign will be different.

I feel he betrayed his supporters in 2004.

Not the perfect politician but a great man. Very proud of him, he would of been a WONDERFUL president. Makes me sad to think America picked such an idiot in comparision.

and I hope that he is there working for us and for his state for many years to come. My daughter will be living in Boston as of September...and I think that going from her 2 Dem senators in California to 2 Dem Senators in MA is just wonderful!

I love the guy. He's honest as the day is long and that is not common in today's politics. I've researched him so deep, take my word for it. When Kerry is armed with the facts in hand, you can't stop him. He's on the DSM now, I'm betting on Kerry over Bushco!
He fought Iran-Contra for years, they only said he was right in '99.
In my heart, IMO - he would like nothing better than to put Bush away legally.

I respect him for getting back in the Bushass face!!!

for a long, long, loooong time.

Amusing, all the fanfare leading up to his typical windbag performance on the floor---followed by the telltale silence from his rabid circle of operatives. Still, hope springs eternal and his faithful wait for him to throw a scrap amidst all his machismo bravado. He is truly pathetic on every count. Some leader of the opposition with his offensive dick-strutting.

peace is the way.

... as a Senator, positive.

As a presidential candidate, decidedly negative.

I voted negative, because I assume the OP is attempting to hype up a Kerry pres. run in 2008. Why else would all this spinning be going on about whether we like or dislike Kerry? After all, how many US Senators, without presidential aspirations, are we deluged with favorability polls about?

We need all our assets out there and should stop demanding every single one of them fits every single one of our requirements. There is no human being who can be all things to all people. Kerry is a great Senator and a great Democrat. We should be glad we have him.

They are unecessary and devisive. Who cares what people think of John Kerry right now? Who cares what anybody thinks of anybody right now?

It is time to simply educate and discuss. After the 2006 elections, we will better know who and what is needed to win in 2008. Until then, this is just so much puffery.

I am asking as respectfully as I can for all these polls to stop.

Thanks you.

TC

I was just trying to see if the days major events that Kerry had would have any effect on him.

Maybe it is time to all come together and work towards 2006 and 2008.

and this goes for everybody.

It is tiring to see how much time is spent for or against somebody, and how little is spent understanding the issues at stake.

the puddy tats you're trying to herd probably won't comply.

and I firmly believe he continues to fight the good fight.
We need every political gun in our arsenal to battle GOP evil. Senator Kerry personally gave 110% as our party's standard bearer in 2004.

by his actions after the election. He said he had lawyers in place to protect the integrity of the election, then never used them in spite of seriously suspicious results. That abdication cut to the quick. Eventually jumping on the Green Party's challenge was way too little, way too late.

His campaign was spotty, he didn't defend himself from attacks until the damage was done. His judgment was wrong.

I think what he's done lately is, once again, too little, too late,
although I will take whatever I can get. Where was the desire to take the fight to the Republicans during the election? I don't have confidence in him to watch MY back anymore.

That said, if he was the presidential candidate, I would still vote for him. It's important to get the neo-cons out of the White House.

the fight" was a specific promise to fight a legal challenge to any and all voting irregularities occurring on November 4, 2004. He utterly betrayed that promise with his early-morning November 4, 2004 concession speech.

No amount of post-election rhetoric in the Senate can ever make up for that betrayal.

So, yes, I like what he's been saying in the Senate lately. His November 3, 2004 promise is another kettle of fish, unfortunately. Don't confuse the two. They're entirely unrelated.

Given the shortcomings of this poll I must vote "nay". He ran a disastrously wimpish campaign in 2004 and lost to the most vulnerable President in history. Then he immediately wimped out November 4, 2004 and lost my respect forever.

If there are any pro-Kerry devotees posting in this thread please don't try to start a flamewar with me about Kerry. We will never see eye to eye about the man, and I won't waste my time responding.

I voted for Kerry against Bush by default, not because Kerry inspired any enthusiasm in me (he disappointed greatly). And I would vote for him again only if, as in 2004, there were no other choice.

I agree.

did Kerry give a concession speech on November fourth?


It certainly didn't happen on the planet Earth.

Wouldn't your argument have more weight if it were in some fashion related to the world we live in?

http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_1103.html

after the November 2 election, on November 3. Do you ask everyone who makes such a typo or error "on what planet" (did X happen)?

Once the typo is corrected, my argument is flawless.

Kerry threw in the towel with that speech and then pulled his attorneys out of Ohio.

The date isn't the issue - the point is he broke his promise and quit on all of us.

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

Look, here's what happened.

The original poster referred to a Kerry promise on November 3 to "continue the fight".

That reminded me of Kerry's numerous promises up to the night before the election to fight for every last vote. He even had a portion of his website dedicated to accepting contributions to pay for a team of lawyers to fight for every last vote in every state where there were complaints of election irregularities. What Kerry and his people *didn't* tell us is that he/they were accepting tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions and that (1) they were non-refundable in the event he failed to fight any court battles challenging voting irregularities, and (2) the lawyers he retained were working pro bono (for free) and were not accepting payment. I still say Kerry and his campaign people owe every contributor a refund of all those donations.

That's the promise I took the original poster to mean. I recall Kerry trotted Edwards out the night before the election to repeat that promise specifically - to fight a court battle challenging any and all election irregularities.

The poster mentioned November 3 as the date of that promise. He apparently was talking about another promise, a vague and meaningless one, slipped into his concession speech (such concession promises are by their very nature hollow) which I either didn't notice or dismissed as hollow when I originally heard him deliver the speech. So I therefore mistook that November 3 promise for a pre-election promise. The essence of his November 3 speech was his concession of the election. It was followed by his withdrawal of his teams of lawyers who had been positioned to challenge the election results. So I got the dates mixed up.

Now do you get it?

My points about his betrayal of his promise to fight for every last vote are valid, whether you like it or not.

If you want to believe your points are valid even though the arguments used to support them are based on error or fantasy rather than on facts, be my guest.

When someone points out that something I said was factually incorrect, I use the reminder that I make mistakes as an opportunity to examine whether the conclusions I reached based on the misinformation I believed were valid conclusions. You seem to be taking a different approach, as is your right.

Sorry, I said in my original posts that I would ignore any such flames. My points are absolutely valid. The dates were originally mixed up but that doesn't alter the essence of my discussion, nor does it invalidate the conclusions I stated.

Before the election Kerry promised to continue fighting after the election to make certain every vote counted (he even solicitied donations for a legal fund to ensure he could take the battle to the courts). He welched on that promise in his concession speech the morning after the election. All true. Even you would have to admit that if you were willing to be honest about it.

He fought a wimpy campaign, especially w/r/t Iraq, and totally wimped out the day after the election, betraying his promise to his supporters. All true. IMHO, everything he's said and done since has been too little, too late.

End of disussion. You can twirl yourself around about it all you like, you'll be talking to a wall. I'm through talking to you.

:hi:

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

...but I would never vote for him again.

a day late, and a dollar short. He shouldn't have waited until after he lost the damn election to start fighting.

Glad to see he NOW has balls.

Glad to see he NOW stands up to bush and co.

Sad to see he STILL cannot speak in soundbites but rather rambles on until someone shuts him up.

I didn't support his smug ass in 2004 and I wish he would go back to being the playboy he was before he decided he should be president (and then decided he shouldn't).

Edited for spelling

talking about Bush's speech

He was my pick last year, for the Presidential nomination. He carried the nomination, and garnished a impressive 59 million votes. He energized our party, and raised more money then any other Democrat in Presidential history. The campaign cycle of 2004 left the DNC with money in the bank, thanks to Kerry and others for unifying the party behind changing history. He ran a great campaign. Yes he made mistakes. Some of them had to do with the way he responded to things. But then again, when have you see a Bush speech where he didn't respond the way he should have? Some of this campaigns problem was with the staff. But I assure you, all that will be sorted by 2008. Overall, he was the best candidate for the job. He's been a great Senator, would have and will be a great President.

I think since the election he's kicked it up a notch. He knows the 59 million Americans who voted Kerry-Edwards, are still counting on him. He's worked on small business, helping the troops, making sure all children and all americans get quality healthcare, and has held this administration accountable.

He's a great voice for our party, and I'm confident the American people will give him a second try in 2008. He'll have a tough race with the likes of Biden, Hillary, Clark, and others. But I'm sure he'll provail, and go on to win.

President Kerry. Two words never seemed any sweeter :)

P.S. All the Kerry bashing here at DU is getting old. Give it up, and find a new scape goat.

He gets talked about here more than Fuckwit...almost.

I dont agree with everything he does or does not do, but when the GOP/media went after him, it felt like they were going after ME.

I'd like Kerry to formally state that he "should not have trusted Bush" with his Iraq vote- then my opinion would be even MORe positive.

I have a feeling that if Kerry would just stop listening to the "strategists" who lost the last 3 election cycles and just be KERRY- more Liberals would like him.

He's got this "tone" with reporters where he says their name
way way way too often and kind of "jumps" on questions too intensely
with his 1024 pt plan iterations...

then, I think he needs to be more "upfront" on agenda than he is...
I think he's too cautious often...

but it does peeve me that so many bash him after the election.

I think pushing the voter thing more is in order...but overall
I still see him as the best leader we've got...

well, Boxer is the best leader, but he's a close second.

wishy wshy for my taste. But I think his intentions are good.

Ohio was more than a minor disappointment. There was massive evidence of fraud and he looked away...after promising an army of lawyers.

and isn't looking away, then I don't know what we could say that you wouldn't also overlook.

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

who would obviously be an incomparably better president than chimp.

Unfortunately his presidential campaign was poor in many ways.

He lost a golden opportunity and disapointed us all, but he typically does fight for what is right. No, he's not perfect, but he's one of the good guys.

For example, his statement on that the gay marriage platform in the MA dem platform was "wrong" despite the fact that a majority of MA dems supported such a platform serves Democratic interests poorly, so at a minimum, his record as a leader is mixed. And for gays, that is not a small issue. For others, of course, it may very well be small potatoes. But you asked, so that's one reason why I feel negatively.

EDIT: I DID vote for him, though, and I think things would have been better today had he won.

It's usually positive concerning Kerry. I wish he fought a bit more after Nov. 2 but at least he's fighting back now.

Nothing.

He's still learning, but I think he's doing quite well, especially in comparison to so many others.

I have a lot of respect for Kerry. He's a strong, intelligent man.

The guy is an American hero. He is my president!

He was wrong then. There is no excuse. He should explain one way or other. He supported George W. Bush. Why?? Now his hands are tied. He is reluctant to take a hard stand on the war because he supported it. How can any Demo support him until he explains why he supported the GWB war. And please, please don't tell me he was fooled. OMG If that is true it is worse. I believe he yielded to public opinion instead of doing what was right. But that is my opinion. He needs to explain.

And yet, some do.

Senate a long time, or to retire soon and be replaced by another Democrat, I would prefer that Kerry stay in the Senate a long time.

I voted Positive.

and I thought his oped in the NY Times Yesterday was excellent. I only wish that he was able to reach and communicate effectively to the folks in the south.

NyTimes

Will always admire his voting record and his character.

As a Presidential candidate, I feel he let me down. But I think his handlers did give him bad advice during the campaign. The way he followed them surprised me. Guess he could have been loyal to a fault. And I still believe he won. I'll say one thing: Bush compared to Kerry is like our moon compared to the whole universe.

I tried to post this on another DUer's post that was critical of Kerry ("Kerry: another Bush enabler") but the DU mods zapped this post before I could even finish my comment. The other DUer's post wasn't obscene, inflammatory, or in anyway rude, it simply stated the DUer's disappointment with Kerry. Guess we're free to trash Bush here (for good reason), but Kerry, in spite of his failings, is "off limits". Well, anyway, here's my two cents on Kerry:

As a Gay american, I lost complete trust in Kerry during his campaign for presidency due to his spineless position on the same-sex marriage issue. I remember too well how Clinton courted our vote, only to turn about face, once elected, and sell us out by signing DOMA and implementing the despicable DADT (don't ask; don't tell) policy. Kerry's stance against SSM during his campaign, while at the same time professing his support of gay rights, brought back vivid memories of Clinton's hypocrisy.

And now we've learned Kerry is a "skull and bones" man, just like Bush.

And with regard to Clinton, we've since learned about his early CIA ties and now see him all cozied up to Poppy Bush, vacationing with him on his private yacht, etc. Doesn't leave one much room for trust in our so-called Democratic Party leaders, does it?