Kerry in '08--What do you think?

just think we can do better and have a better chance of success.

better than what we have now. Kerry in 2008 is WONDERFUL. He already won.

It seems to me that Kerry didn't win that election last year. As for Gore, well, I'll agree that was stolen.

because of lies for a War that profited those that promoted the slime machine against Kerry, and the Diebold voting 'errors'...Kerry did win. No paper trail is like no body or no DNA.

If you can't follow the paper trail of votes, FOLLOW THE MONEY. That is what this administration is all about, IMHO. Their pretense of 'religion' is precisely that...all SHAM.

Neocons...
PNAC members...
JINSA members...
AIPAC members...
Iraq/Afghanistan US contractors...
Profits from the war for the above companies...
MSM...

Lots of money, lots of lies, lots at stake...they had to win at all costs.

"No fucking way on God's green earth" and "Over my dead body". I'll abstain.

Never again.

myself.

He's lucky to have the likes of you on his side.

no repeat!

And unless he addresses the Stolen Election of 2004 he'll never have my vote again. We trusted him once already and he wouldn't even make sure our votes were counted. Otherwise I think he's probably a pretty good guy as far as elected officals go. :shrug:

http://ifk-johnkerry.blogspot.com/2005/01/kerry-pushes-for-federal-election.html

It addresses the issues of the 2004 Election, election reform, etc.

He's not King Kong screaming above the city.

I remember thinking right after the election - well, maybe he's gathering evidence and will eventually bust these Republican thieves. No such luck. Actions speak louder than words and so far Kerry has not shown me enough action to trust him again. Which is really unfortunate since there is alot to like about him otherwise. :shrug:

He quit at the first sign of trouble. That says all that needs to be said.

:kick:

When he closed his war chest, instead of helping investigate voting irregularities, and just gave up with 15 million sitting there, he lost any chance for my support in 2008. I'm sorry, but I just felt he betrayed me and everyone else who worked hard to get him elected. I have no idea who I'll support and I don't know who is going to run, so I can't 100% rule out Kerry, but if there is anyone else decent up against him...

If he ends up being the nominee I'll vote for him, but he damn well better spend every dime to get elected even if he has to fight Diebold.

him in? - I was flabbergasted hearing such a statement - like Nothing went wrong in Ohio. He simply in my opinion did nothing to help Conyers help him?? - John Kerry I love you man, in the end you didn't stand tall enough.

This being my first presidential election, I was so excited about Kerry, especially after the debates. And I campaigned very hard for him. After the elections, I knew in my heart he won. But I feel he lets all of us down who worked so hard for him by not standing up and fighting against the fraud.

But also, I feel very let down by the whole Democratic party who just lie down and let the Republicans have all the power they want to do whatever they want.

Even good ones like Feingold or Boxer. Senators simply can't get elected President, and we can't fucking afford to chance it in 2008.

Wimpy Dems who think they have spines, but refuse to stand up for our Presidential Candidate, is the problem. Doesn't matter who it is, problem will be the same. Happened to Al Gore, it'll happen to anybody.

Didn't stand up against the Swift Boat Liars. Didn't stand up against the blatant Ohio fraud. It's almost as if he really didn't want the job.

And we already know the DLC'ers running his campaign didn't want him to have it.

Anyway,that's beside the point. Senators cannot win. A 40 year historical record is enough evidence not to chance it again.

Hillary is unqualified anyway. Boxer or Feingold would be great, but they should each run for governor, so they could be viable candidates.

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

Not that he's a leftist, but he certainly was a Chicken shit who wouldn't stand up for the people who stood up for him.

Not the progressives

http://pdamerica.org/newsletter/2004-08-27/

They were busy raising money for PDA last year.

And I would assume DFA, by extention?

with anybody who pretends to have supported the party or the candidate last year, when they weren't; then turns around and blames the party and candidate for letting them down. If one didn't support the principles in the first place, one shouldn't wonder why they couldn't convince anybody else to. That would be true for PDA, DFA, DLC or anybody else. The one thing I do know, PDA is the only group I've found who was raising money for themselves instead of identifying and supporting Democratic principles in the campaign.

but her record is short so she would not be subject to the same type of dissection on her record as Feingold or Boxer or Kerry, etc.

public eye. That essentially makes it about the same as if she had been a senator for a long time

They're all Senators.

I think that would leave Clark and Warner on our side.

Is Gore far enough away from his Senator days to be considered viable?

Of those three, Clark and Gore would be acceptable to me, but Warner has been annoying me. And he looks to be as Conservative as Hillary has been, though I think he comes by that more legitimately.

That said, I'm still hoping Kerry pulls a Nixon.

I'm not sure the General can just step into the White House with no elected experience, so I'd recommend Clark for the #2 slot. I could easily support a Gore/Clark ticket.

Warner's a governor so technically he's got a better shot than Hillary, but he's DLC, so he's not on my list.

I can consider Gore again because at least he tried to fight back. Plus, Gore spoke out strongly against torture while the Kerry campaign stayed fairly quiet about it because they didn't want to appear unpatriotic.

We all know that Gore is the real president of the United States. I suspect that Kerry did win Ohio, but we will never know for sure because of his quick capitulation.

His history was such that no one concerned about torture would not take the Kerry's mention of Abu Graib in his long laundry list of Bush misdeeds and connect it to Kerry's powerful denunciation of American war crimes in VN which the Republicans were trying to use against him. Kerry did refer to speaking out when he returned from the war.

Kerry also often mention international law and the Geneva Convention. (I doubt I was alone in hearing Kerry's put down of O'Neil's questioning of Kerry's assertion that free fire zoness were against international law - "The Geneva Convention, you've heard of them?"- and associating it with his often 2004 repeated references to international law and diplomacy and the Geneva convention. If you are for following international law - you are not for unilaterally invading countries or torture.

People who read more of his life knew he would not tolerate torture. His Work against the contras was at least in part against the RW abuses of people in these countries. Given this position, Kerry had more to lose by making more noise on this - he knew from experience how sensitive it is - and nothing to gain. Remember Durbin -this is what the Republicans would have done during the election to Kerry if he hadn't finessed this issue.

would be that we now have a better idea of what was missing from the 2004 campaign rather than we have a better idea of how to patch the weaknesses of a Kerry candidacy.

Having said that, it is still very possible that during the 2008 primaries voters decide that they have a better idea of how his weaknesses can be patched and prefer that over what all the other candidates offer.

a general election in which there is no incumbent Vice President... It'll be a clean slate in 2008.

I remember that as the year that the Korean War was raging on.....

Senators and Governors ran...but, at the end, a General was elected and later re-elected (one who had never held public office)....and the war was ended shortly into his first term.

Maybe it's better that we take a page out of that year's playbook...then the 1992 playbook (a moderate red state governor without any foreign policy experience who's stance on Iraq or other policy matters we don't even know (hint)W-A-R-N-E-R or just someone who happens to have the same last name as the 1992 winner).

Think of it....we can substitute "I like Ike"....with "Wes is Best".

with 'Wes is Best'".

Amen to that! Wes is best.

Ike learned of their agenda and resisted as much as he could of it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was Prescott "Grandpa Nazi" Bush who introduced him to Dick Nixon and the 52 ticket was born.

Hopefully the 2008 election is when we evict those fucking pieces of shit for good.

Ike let loose the economic hitman who are probably responsible for a lot of the miserable state the world is in right now.

But as far as BCE Presidents go, he was probably the least harmful. At least he saw the self-perpetuating war machine (or military industrial complex) for what it was and tried to warn us.

The extent of the US role in Mossadegh's overthrow was not formally acknowledged for many years, although the Eisenhower administration was quite vocal in its opposition to the policies of the ousted Iranian Prime Minister. In his memoirs, Eisenhower writes angrily about Mossadegh, and describes him as impractical and naive, though stops short of admitting any overt involvement in the coup.

Eventually the CIA's role became well-known, and caused controversy within the organization itself, and within the CIA congressional hearings of the 1970s. Die-hard CIA supporters maintain that the plot against Mossadegh was strategically necessary, and praise the efficiency of agents in carrying out the plan. Critics say the scheme was paranoid and colonial.

...

In March 2000, then secretary of state Madeleine Albright stated her regret that Mossadegh was ousted: "The Eisenhower administration believed its actions were justified for strategic reasons. But the coup was clearly a setback for Iran's political development and it is easy to see now why many Iranians continue to resent this intervention by America." In the same year, the New York Times published a detailed report about the coup based on CIA documents.

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

Unfortunately, big business would have him/her assassinated just like JFK.

But, just think if we could get a real Democrat as President. We could get our economy back, jobs, pour money and resources into solar energy, greatly reduce global warming and pollution, educate our children, grow our own food, have safe food to eat, safe water to drink, protect our environment, let trees grow, restore our Constitution and our civil rights, truly protect our country, fight a war only if truly warranted, restore/rebuild/create our good reputation with the world, promote science and technology, have a health care system, a state of the art transportation system, and, and, a true good feeling about living in the country where I was born...

Compare and contrast... We currently live in a hell hole...a cesspool of toxins...an illegal, criminal, and murderous government...and on and on.

But as a presidential candidate... not so hot.

Time for somebody who can fight for We The People.

Clark looks pretty strong, as does Hillary. We've got a number of good candidates to choose from, which is a good thing.

But thank you for asking.

Nothing against John Kerry.....but he wasn't the one I thought could get the job done originally....but I supported him during the general election, and hoped that no-one would notice.

I do believe, like John Kerry said....that this was the most important election in our lifetime....witnessed by the recent SCOTUS selection, the energy bill, CAFTA, and the war that rages on.

Why should I want him to be our candidate again, when he didn't get the job done the first time round?

I don't get it. :shrug:

While I admire this man very much, he still hasn't explained his gazillion dollar surplus at the end of his '04 campaign, AND the Swifties are still winning, they've brought their fear, lies and loathing tactics under a different RNC website to the Va Gov Campaign.

I like JK, I adore the spirit of Theresa, but this team ain't gonna fly again in 2008. We NEED a candidate that isn't going to let the DNC/DLC powers run his campaign. Not to mention, I'm sick of professional politicians. The NUMBER ONE cause of voter apathy, it's just not all Diebold's fault !

Part of the problem in election 2004 was that the media invited people like O'Neill on tv and let them talk with little or no rebuttal. Many of the lazy pundits and news readers didn't know when they were being lied to. They had been too lazy to research the events in question. They just sat there silently while they were being lied to. Now, that the accusations have had the time to be thorougly looked into and have been found to be in many cases false and in other cases unprovable,the swifties credibility has been greatly diminished. These guys should not be able to decide who gets to be president. They will not cause me to turn away from Kerry. Besides,the republicans will tar anyone we nominate. Dropping Kerry won't make our problems go away.

Intelligent, brave, resourceful and hopelessly naive. When I, who have never run for office in my life and consider myself innocent of mind and hopelessly naive as well, can, as a private citizen with no real inputs from "intelligence" or other "insider" sources of information, see the truth about the danger to this country and her people from the Nazis in charge while he cannot, he is just the wrong person to be titular head of our republic. I defended him, voted for him, campaigned for him and kept myself from going into a "piss on it all, I quit" funk by hoping (and preaching to all and sundry) that he was going to fool everybody by turning his boat and making a totally unanticipated attack.
I was utterly wrong. He brings a knife to a gun fight. He totally under estimated the slime machine and the absolute evil of the Rape-public-ans.

From everything I can see he still remains blissfully unaware of the horror going on all around him, as does, unfortunately, Hillary Clinton. Even when slapped in the face with the incompetence and blindness of his so-called advisers, he still opted for only a minor shakeup and brought in still more who suffered from the same near sightedness.

He, in my opinion, is admirably suited for the political realities of forty years ago and, like the military, fighting last century's war, is simply ill suited for the modern realities. Good man, wrong century. I will vote for, campaign for, and defend anyone who is selected to try to stop this slide into fascism but I will do everything in my power to defeat, up to and through the primaries (if such things haven't become a total anachronism) anyone whom I consider to be too inept to wrest the reins away from the berserkers. This also includes Hillary, as she proved ten years ago to be ill prepared to face her own battle with these horrors from hell.

did you detect a "but" coming? BUT HE BLEW IT!!!!!

It would one long "I told you so" the American people, that's for sure.

Kerry should be resigned to the dustbin of failed Presidential candidates.

Seriously. Not again, please.

the not again for me is Shrum and Cahill. Kerry, oh yeah, any day and twice on Sunday.

advocating for gays to serve openly in the military and for felons to attain their right to vote after serving their time are and were against the polls at the time and thankless tasks for the most part.

All Kerry gained politically was a HUGE target on his back and the backs of his family.

the media planted that meme against Kerry.

In hindsight, that was awful. I supported him 100% and pushed his candidacy and made excuses when necessary, but I have to call a spade a "spade" now, and Kerry did truly seem a little slippery. I still would vote for him if he won the candidacy in 2008, but I hope for the sake of Dems, that it's somebody else, because if Kerry couldn't win in 2004, it's not at all clear that he could win in 2008. I love Teresa, by the way - let HER run - LOL! And Edwards.

.

in the recent past, but Kerry should have clinched it by a wide margin, and he just didn't. Put the onus where it ultimately belongs.

And precisely what is Nancy Pelosi or Barbara Boxer or even John Kerry doing about paper trails? Are they even paying attention to that issue? Because if they aren't, it's a bit of a stretch to keep claiming that the 2004 election was stolen. Sorry, but that's just the reality.

machine is counting a percentage of those votes to the GOP? The Dem could be racking up more votes than you would ever know.

The DNC is in charge of elections for Dems all over the country and I believe they will work on exposing the problem.

And I do expect there is more happening than we know at this time. I believe seriously that Cam Kerry is running for Sec of State in Mass. so he can better access the machines and expose those who control them before 2008.

He had the chance of a lifetime, and he blew it.

The reason that Boxer and Pelosi and Kerry himself are apparently doing nothing about the Diebold machines and paper trails is most likely because these political winners know that on balance, the election was lost not because of the voting machines, but because Kerry ran a poor campaign. He would have made a better president than *, but he didn't win. He should have won Florida AND Ohio resoundingly.

We need to have verifiable paper trails, to be sure, but we also have to come to grips with the reality that Kerry lost mostly fair and square and we need to address all the reasons why he lost and then move forward. Just MHO.

By the way, if it's true that the DNC is working on something, don't they realize the clock is ticking?! :mad: DO something about it now, not in 2006 or 2008 on the eve of elections when pukes will refuse to consider changing something that has been working for them.

lawmaker and candidate. The only time he could rely on on both he and Bush being unfiltered and he won hands down - he HAD to because media would take the slightest error and turn it into a win for Bush.

He had 90$ of broadcast media trying to keep him down while they were keeping Bush propped up for his entire term.

That's why the media editted out most of Kerry's campaign speeches - because they were loathe to discuss the issues he spoke to on a daily basis that emphasized Bush's failures.

He won the debates, no question, but that obviously didn't translate into a resounding election win.

A winner would know how to pull the right levers, respond to attacks and get the airtime needed even WITHOUT the media's cooperation. I have a feeling that Bill Clinton would know how to do that outstandingly. Kerry obviously did not.

If a candidate can't win with an unfair referee about whom you can do little, get someone who can.

Even Clinton has been spun ouit of his control.

Clinton was blamed for being asleep at the wheel and allowing terrorism to flourish. Most of the people in this country even blamed him after 9-11. Clinton had a book and a promotional media tour and the 9-11 commission report to prove that was a false perception, and yet many still believe it - Why? Because the media doesn't DISCUSS the facts or the truth, they allow most of the Republican spin to go unchallenged.

So, even the great silver tongue Clinton has been defined by this new media - even though most people should know him by his record. Media spun Bush into the more competent leader on terrorism.

Kerry was an unknown to most people so it was easier for the GOP to spin him for the media.

It should have been harder for the media to spin Clinton, but, they did - successfully.

Deal with the GOP control over media and the voting machines because EVERY Dem candidate will suffer the consequences if we don't.

right?

even the most glib Dem, then why would it be important to prevent ANY highly qualified and intelligent Dem from running if we managed to deal with and expose the media and machines? Especially if it's Kerry who is working to make that happen.

I don't think Dean concentrating on Sec of State races and Cam Kerry running for Sec of State is just happenstance. I think they are working an inside angle.

All else being equal, as you suggest, then I guess it boils down to whether or not your experience with him as a candidate was positive or negative, and I have to say that my experience of him as a candidate is overall negative.

You couldn't find a handful of people in a grocery store who could tell you that it was John Kerry who investigated and exposed more government corruption than any lawmaker in modern history - or could even remember that IranContra and BCCI were essentially about the funding of terrorism.

The media wasn't interested in that angle and so Shrum was dumb enough to not push it - now that media's getting more concerned about looking like dupes for Rove, they might allow more truth and facts to emerge.

Also now, the Swiftvets are proven liars, and the CIA community is more willing to come forward and OPENLY oppose Bush. Something they were more surreptitious about before the election when they were working with Kerry behind the scenes.

If they wanted to suppress his personality, leadership, accomplishments, candidacy, why did they endorse Kerry by an overwhelming percentage???

Your claim breaks down here.

MEDIA shapes ALL perception, and the broadcast media kept reporting Bush as a well=liked, popular president who couldn't be beat on the terror issue.

That gave his Nov. "win" plausible cover.

I mean, I know there are SOME Americans who get all their news from TV, but is it accurate to say "most"?

Regardless, you seem to be undermining your claim that the media in general is GOP controlled. Anyway, even if it is, what can we/dems do about it?

It's not just FOX and all their outlets, but, CNN is controlled by AOL and Steve Case is a longtime Bush ally. ALL the NBCs are controlled by GE - one of the largest DEFENSE contractors in the world.

And DSM proved that many even in the newspaper biz are nervous about crossing Bush, and that doubled Kerry's job to PERSUADE them he was the better candidate - and for people who READ, he was.

And is a GOP-controlled broadcast media unstoppable or invincible? Because if not, Kerry obviously was incapable of doing anything to counter it and its misrepresentations.

Find someone who CAN overcome the GOP media, not just make excuses when they lose. So that's the major reason why I don't think Kerry should be the candidate in 2008 - he appears incapable of dealing with the hand he's dealt. It's not fair, but that's just the way it is, and Dems have to have someone who knows how to do that because I hate to break it to you, but 2008 isn't going to be any better in terms of a GOP-run broadcast media or voting machines.

in the current state of media. It has to be done BY the organized Dems in the DNC and citizen activists.

We have no choice - because all the other malfeasance from voting machines to criminal cover ups are committed with the complicity of an enabling media.

Knowing HOW to do it...you can toughen your words, your speeches, and your ads, and the media still has the power of the editting room.

That's why we HAVE to expose it NOW. Enough of us know about it now to force it into the open more. And I think Dean will be ready to make a move when he sees the opportunity. They are not unaware of the reality of the situation.

saying, "see, people, the media isn't playing fair" isn't going to resonate with people generally. It could be a huge turn-off.

the difference is that people started to see THROUGH some of the GOP smokescreen because of their hubris on Schiavo. No matter how much the media helped glorify the Republicans' position on it they still couldn't sell it. The same with Social Security.

I think that is when the fog started clearing for many who had been taking the media's word about Republican "values" for the last decade.

I guess I'm in overdrive about this issue because it seems the window of opportunity is there for us, with DSM and CIA leak and the Noe/Ohio scandal - if we don't allow ourselves to be distracted.

I have one of the longest pseudonyms here and you have one of the shortest? Look at the thread outline above - mindboggling. LOL :hi:

.

Not again!

Why don't more people see that he's the ONLY person with enough of the right experience, perspectives, vision and delegation abilities to work effectively on a national and international scale after taking office to SAVE WHAT LITTLE WILL BE LEFT OF THIS NATION ON JANUARY 20, 2009? Why can't people see that? Why is that so hard for people to see?

Maybe as we go along, people will begin to see.

Damn it, I hope he at least has a place in the next Dem administration. We need his experience. His knowledge is all over the board. He's just so solid in so many areas.

How anyone ever saw an empty suit there, I don't know.

But there's no way I can pretend my feelings or intellectual apraisal of Kerry have changed.

though sometimes I wonder why I'm SO attached to him. I suspect it's something psychological concerning my deceased Navy dad and it being my first real campaign and all.

But nevertheless, he is one of the most qualified people I can think of for the job.

... and I could argue against it pretty well I think, what does it matter if he cannot get elected?

No, Kerry had his chance and he is simply not up to the job of winning the presidency. From letting the SBVT lies go virtually unchallenged to folding like a paper napkin on Nov 3rd, he proved that whatever great courage and vision he may have once had, it is all gone now.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040805-012143-5349r.htm

it's just that the media ignored Kerry's side of the story.

The RW has pushed the idea that the SBVT is what bought down Kerry's candidacy, and the left wing echoes the lie until it becomes the truth. This gives the MSM a pass for their biased coverage of the election.

They did the same thing to Gore and they'll do the same thing to whatever Dem. runs in 2008. Instead of repeating the spin, keep your eye on the true villian - the media and the right wing that controls it.

Don't help them!

... ignored his side of the story, because it was uninteresting.

He could have made it interesting, but it's just not in him.

if it makes you feel better

... is seeing the party coming to grips with reality instead a wallowing in the same old failed delusions election after losing election.

he comes out swinging in regards to election reform. We need someone in the senate and the house to keep this issue on the front burner of national consciousness. I would support any Dem who does this. Democracy is doomed if this doesn't happen. I can't believe Dems aren't screaming about this issue day and night. They need to be RELENTLESS on this issue. No more touch screens, paper ballots only, not in 10 years, but NOW damn it!
If Canada can use only paper ballots which are hand counted, so can the USA. Kerry could earn back some respect if he crusaded on this paramount issue.

THe LWV is a non-partisan, all-American group. It would be better if they (or similar groups) lead the effort to clean up voting. Kerry has addressed the voting issues - and has been ridiculed for doing so - he has talked about how local activists have to take this on as an issue (in a Boston speech last spring).

This should have been an issue after 2000. After pasiing some relatively weak legislation most people ignored the problem. The Democratic party needs to continue pushing for fixing this problem at a local level in each state where there is a problem. This is not just Kerry's problem - he in fact, like Al Gore was the victim. Gore was not blamed, but Kerry has been, even though Kerry has spoken about this problem far more often than Gore did. (In fact, Kerry has spoken up consistantly on nearly every issue since the election. Gore disappeared for 18 months.)

Hell, no to "Mr. turn tail & run" who promised to fight for us & fight for a fair election.

I won't rule out anyone who voted for the IWR, PROVIDED they repudiate and disown that vote in 2006 and 2008. If they want to say they were taken in to save face, I'll give them that option. But given what we know now about how the intelligence was manipulated, if any candidate STILL tries to say it was the right thing to do under the circumstances, he/she can forget about my vote. I'll vote Green instead.

As far as Kerry is concerned, I'd also like to see him get serious and proactive on the subject of verified voting. It pretty much depends upon what he DOES between now and 2008, not what he SAYS.

I like Kerry a lot but his campaign left a lot to be desired.

I was very dissapointed at his unwillingness to fight the swift boat liars and the election fraud. Hes a good man and a great politician, but seeing him back down was painful.

I would prefer Wes Clark, John Edwards or Howard Dean, but if Kerry got the nod he would again have my vote.

My response (aside from Not just no but HELL NO!!:


:rofl:

During the primaries he went at it like a pitbull, mortgaging his house to stay viable and smearing the other candidates left and right.

He got the nomination because he was supposed to be "electable," and we saw how much crap that turned out to be.

His general campaign was just awful. The reps managed to paint him as a flip-flopper BECAUSE HE WAS ONE.

He was a Vietnam vet who voted for the war, but then gave the war tepid support, alienating both the pro- and anti-war crowds.

He never countered SBVT lies, making him look like either a liar or a coward.

Too much of his campaign was poll and advisor driven, like the "sticking to the high ground" crap.

During the debates, he had so many opportunities to call Bush on his lies, but instead he was silent or said something tepid and inoffensive.

Finally, he vowed to fight until the end, then he caved, losing much of the tail end of his support.

And the fact that the election was SO close yet he still had millions left just rankles. I know people who gave him more money than they could afford to give SO THAT HE WOULD USE IT.

He's a patrician bonesman, and we need a man who understands how Americans live.

There were a lot of people very passionate about Clark, Dean, Edwards, and even Gore, but Kerry... notsomuch.

What makes Kerry the best choice?

Wasn't he the other person running from the two right-wings of the business party?

I also seem to remember someone with that name trying to out "war in iraq" the shrub in '04...

Some people keep propagating the myth or carry the delusion that Kerry could have overturned the results of the election.

Last I've checked, you can't count air as votes. You can't count exit polls as votes. A concession speech is NOT legally binding. Kerry's legal team and others did their best to unearth the corruption in Ohio and other places in the US. I'm convinced that Kerry DID win, but the country and the MSM would not have allowed the election to be under protest for months.

You couldn't count on the MSM to get Kerry's message out when they were willing to keep letting the mother f*cking Swift Boat assholes on the tube, WELL after they were debunked. Bush was handed the election by the willing MSM and all of Kerry's speeches that exposed Bush are NOW coming true. In spades!

Kerry is a proven, solid Democrat who WILL make an excellent President...that's my hope anyway.

For those that say that Kerry had his chance and choose others (who had their chance in the Primaries), they may forget how others have not won the Presidency first but do at a later time.

That's a fact. I don't want a proven loser to be on the ticket again.

...if you want to play that game:

Wesley Clark
Howard Dean
John Edwards

...and all the others that LOST to John Kerry in the Primaries.

Hmmmm...that leaves Hillary.... you game for her?

Kerry lost the whole enchilada. I don't want him on the ticket again. PERIOD.

on edit: Why is Hillary the only alternative to the 3 you listed? There are a lot of other contenders besides Ms DLC Sell-Out.

..does that mean you still don't want a LOSER on the ticket?

Eat your words, junior.

The others have not been tested in a GE.

...the least amount of votes BY ANY candidate who ran against a wartime president...um..who also had the willing MSM to abide by Rove's lies and...um...by one of the most corrupt election results due to BBV, etc.

If you think any candidate other than Kerry could or would not have been railroaded by the media, you have a lot to learn about the past election.

If there was massive election fraud, which I believe, he should have fought longer than 6 hours, before all the votes were in for God's sake. He didn't fight. He just took his huge war chest and instead of spending it on lawyers to fight for our votes, he started immediately campaigning for 2008. Kerry again? NO THANKS. Eating broken glass sounds more palatable.

Is a concession speech legally binding?

Yes or no.

Bonus question:

Has any person who gave a concession speech in turn have the election results changed and they won?

Yes or no


By the way, your assessment of what Kerry did after the election is completely, totally wrong. You need to do some homework first before spewing lies.

And I know what Kerry did, or rather didn't do, to fight this second * election theft. I believe my eyes, ears, brain, and common sense before spin.

Perhaps Kerry should somehow turn into King Kong and turn over the Capitol building into rubble unless the election is overturned.

Perhaps Kerry should put on some flak and invade the White House and hold Bush hostage until he overturns the election.

You just don't get it...period.

Before you eat your own, do some homework first. Don't be lazy.

Thousands dead. For human greed and arrogance. B* is no 'Christian;' and he's lost his soul, metaphorically speaking, IMO.

"What does a man profit if he loses his soul?"

Keep the faith. Especially tonight.

I find most people who are abjectly against Kerry usually haven't been paying attention to Kerry's efforts before, during and after the 2004 Election.

You have to keep up with all that Kerry has done as well as all that is going on today, which can make even the most patient person a raving, raging lunatic in some people's eyes.

Let them bash Kerry if it lets them have a nice weekend...I guess.

:crazy: :toast: :spank: :beer:

didn't know how to handle the slime thrown at him. Our country sorely needs him.

On the other hand, Gore may decide to run. Not the Gore that ran in 2000, with Holy Joe no less, but the Gore that opposed the Iraq war and that almost ran in 2004.

We need to move forward, Kerry had his chance and he came up short (although I still feel we wuz robbed again).

gore was elected president once, time to do it again and this time take the office.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

...Unless the Doc himself jumps in ;)

They have excellent resumes, great presence and are well-positioned as far as the issues.

I'd like to hear what he has to say now. I've listened to him quite a few times over the last five years and like the new Al. He's much more personable when he let's that fire out of his belly.

Sure, why not?

What dolstein said! ;)

Besides.... these Kerry/Hillary polls are gonna drive us to drink! :beer: :crazy:

Perhaps the DLC feels that Kerry won't be their "man" this time around, after all, didn't Al From just give a ringing endorsement to Hillary?

Whoever Al From is for, I am against.

I'll take Kerry over Hillary in a heartbeat, but that's really not saying much at this point.

he was not the problem in this past election. And, if people are too thick to see that....we are in for a whole lot worse before it gets any better....and....we deserve it. Wake the fuck up.

...shot at it.

He seemed to search for good wording when giving an answer or a speech.. to politician-y. We need someone who can dance verbal circles around an opponent, media or political. Someone who doesn't seem to be consulting with his lawyer for the proper semantics before spitting-out his answer. And someone who's willing to get down & dirty - or downright nasty - about his opponent, even if it is the truth about 'em.

Who won the 2004 Presidential primaries anyway?

Give Kerry a chance. And never say never.

Terry McUseless, Al From, and the Whore media.

Who lost? America. :(

I think Rendell has the capacity to get a lot of crossover votes. Regarding Kerry, I think he would do better in 2008 because he will have (hopefully) learned from his mistakes and would be at an advantage.

I don't know about that.
Is there something about Rendell that I should know? He doesn't particularly impress me.

He's a good Democrat who is pretty popular here in Pa, even among Republicans he is relatively well liked personally. He has a very good personality and comes across well. He gets it. The Democrats have a problem as coming across as too elitist, or talking down to people. Plus, he's a governor. And governors usually are elected president. The fact that he led sections of the crowd at Eagles games in throwing snowballs at the Dallas Cowboys is a big help. And he still does post-game shows! LOL. He's someone to keep an eye on. After he wins reelection in 2006, watch for him to become prominent. He is more likely to win some red states that Kerry lost.

That does not bode well.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2005/Pennsylvania%20Governor.htm

PA Governor 2006: Rendell Slightly Ahead
Survey of 500 Likely Voters

July 20, 2005

Election 2006

Pennsylvania Governor

Lynn Swann (R) 41%
Ed Rendell (D) 47%
Other 3%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Election 2006

Pennsylvania Governor

Bill Scranton III (R) 42%
Ed Rendell (D) 46%
Other 3%
RasmussenReports.com


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
July 25, 2005--Pennsylvania may be hosting some of the most interesting political races in the country next year. Incumbent Democrat Ed Rendell holds a very modest lead over two potential challengers in his bid for re-election.

Rendell leads former Pittsburgh Steelers star Lynn Swann by six percentage points--47% to 41%. The latest Rasmussen Reports survey finds that Rendell also holds a four point edge, 46% to 42%, over former Lt. Governor Bill Scranton III.

The survey of 500 Likely voters has a 4.5 percentage point margin of sampling error.

Swann attracts 26% of the African-American vote for the GOP ticket and splits the white vote with Governor Rendell.

Scranton leads Rendell among white voters but has little support in the African-American community.

I think Rasmussen tends to favor Republicans. You may well be right, but I would like to see more polls to verify that. In the last set that I read, Rendell had a pretty big lead. But when push comes to shove in 2006, I think Rendell will win pretty easily. Rendell is the first governor of Pa to come from Philly in something like 150 years. So he overcame the traditional skepticism of western & central Pa towards the eastern side. Swann is a popular guy. This poll might have something to do with the Pa legislature giving itself a big pay raise, something very unpopular. Pa has the second highest number of representatives (who are paid the highest and have the best pensions), second only to California - while we're a state with 1/3 California's population. It's ridiculous and people are right to be mad about that. While we shouldn't downplay Swann or underestimate him, he is an unknown commodity and has no experience in government or in campaigning. Rendell is not in trouble the way Santorum is.

He gave up so easily the day after the election. I am preplexed by that to this day!

He ran a less than impressive campaign in my book, Even though I was a good little soldier and voted for him, I am not going to do that again the next time. Democrats better front an anti-war, pro-people candidate or I am not going to give my vote to them PERIOD!


John

But Im hoping Clark wins .

Any Democrat would be OK .

in the White House because it is due them and I believe either one would do a good job as President.

:kick:

to the bitter end, whereas Kerry folded in record speed. I'll take Gore any day over Kerry.

I don't think he'll win the primary next time, if he should choose to run. I think many Democrats voted for him last time because they thought he was the safest choice -- proven winner, unassailable military record, a tough campaigner. Unfortunately, those reasons won't fly again.

Sorry, I worked hard for him and went the extra mile, and I honestly believe he worked his tail off too. But he let himself get tied up in knots by a huckster like Rove and he should have known better. And don't bring up the fact that he won by the numbers...the numbers were in his favor and he should have smoked bush.

even with an ass hat for a prez, he would have won by a slim margin if no funney biz. He ran his campain in a very lackluster style.

An F..ing dimwit with a BACKPACK for Brains????

He surrounded himself with idiots during his 2004 campaign and then took their idiotic advice, even against his own strong personal feelings. Kerry lost both the 2004 and 2008 elections in August 2004 when he and his campaign failed to win the media battle against the NotSoSwift Boat Vets.

themselves to vote for Kerry. I think they said they felt like he was an unknown commodity, and they didn't care for the substance of the smear campaign by the swiftboat liars, even though they knew it was lies.

No, a new candidate is needed.

You can't ask a civilized question on this board without someone crying "flamebait!" There were no flames in this. Simple question and three simple responses. It doesn't even mean I'm supporting Kerry or not supporting him. It's just a poll. Besides if it were flamebait it would have been locked by now.

other than to divide?

Kerry betrayed us. He said he'd make sure "every vote was counted", and then he just fucking quit. He's a traitor. We put time, money, and effort into supporting him, and he just bailed on the whole country, and hence, the world. He's a fucking enemy of true progressive ideals. We should absolutely, positively, NOT LET THAT FUCKER RUN AGAIN.

Look at all of the horrible things that Bush has done since he stole the election! Kerry apparently doesn't give a shit now and didn't give a shit when he had a good chance to be a man about it and stand up to the fascists who have taken over our country. He's a fucking coward.

We should have gotten behind Clark, but he got in to the race too late. Clark wouldn't have just sat idly by while the Rove slime machine ate him alive. This the the fate of the world we're talking about here. Now we have a Global Corporate Empire, courtesy of Bushco. Nice going, KERRY, you little maggot!

The next president of the US will be decided by Diebold & ES&S
election systems.

With their not for public view proprietary software & their hard Right Republican Owners.

Unless there is a massive Dem landslide that can't be
stolen.

but who knows what's gonna happen between now and then.

We've got an asshole in the White House and more in Congress who are perfectly capable of pissing off the whole country and giving us the election in '08.

They might even give us a new Congress in '06, and that might be the key. We could have a few more governors then too and an impeachement-- just the things to change all the calculations.

Here's my longshot-- Corzine wins the governor's seat here in NJ this year, and uses that to run for Prez in '08.

At any rate, the real race won't begin until Jan '07 when the new congress takes its seat. By then we'll also have the lineup of governors, state legislatures, party hacks and other stuff to work their magic pushing Prez candidates. And, there will be some new names-- face it, back in 2001 who heard about Clark, Dean, or Edwards?

Kerry is a good guy, but he had his chance. A candidate rarely does better the second time (I keep thinking of Stevenson - I don't want that happening again).

In fact, I think there are several non senators that are worth looking at. Two come to mind - Warner and Clark. Warner is a bit moderate for my tastes, but he actually has something to show for himself in politics (unlike Hillary and Kerry as well to some extent). He's governed VA very effectively and is very popular there. Clark is my ideal candidate though and I hope he gets a chance this time.

and that says alot.

He should have won by a far larger margin. With Bush record it should not have been close.

nt

Hell no.

doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Kerry doesn't get a "do over," he blew it and should now start workng on he's senate campaign. Al Gore won in 2000 and deserves a chance to be re-elected.

He let me down and ran a poor campaign. He failed to distinguish his stance from Bush in terms of Iraq and Abortion. He played too nice and Bush took advantage of that. No thank you! I also am still a little disturbed with the way he suddenly surged upward during the primaries while Dean was supposed to have won. In fact, had Dean won the primaries and the nomination, I am convinced we'd all be talking about President Dean now.


John

why would I want to suffer another 4 years under GWB and then nominate him again???

I swallowed my objections, donated to his campaign, and gave him my vote after the '04 convention, but I won't do it again.

with the recount which was a sham also.Kerry said all your votes would be counted THIS time!!! One Florida is too much just to have the caper be moved to another state. Like Bush, he failed in his first term he has no business running this country.

However, big business founded this contry and obviously it sure as hell is going to have a say in running it!

I supported him through the primaries, and in retrospect I should have supported Dean.

(Unlike Bush, I admit it when I'm wrong)

Time for some new blood. We need to mix it up some.

if not, no.

Sen. v. Sen. Kerry comes out great, against a gov./etc.. he'll get killed

Kerry was an awful candidate...he spent too much time vacationing and gave up WAY too quickly.

.

I want someone new. Unfortunately Hillary is going to get the nod unless I'm missing something.

and will REALLY stand up against the Swifties?

and will REALLY not vote for a war?

No thanks...

RL

but it's like he never showed up for the campaign. Never again.

Kerry not only won the debates, but he publicly embarrassed Bush in the debates. And yet, Kerry still lost the election. What more did you Kerry detractors want Kerry to do? Beat up Shrub on the debate stage?

When a candidate clearly wins the debates but loses the election, then we must conclude that the electorate, not the candidate, is the problem.

Face it... We live in Dumbfuckistan. The better man has a tough time winning elections in Dumbfuckistan. To be blunt, losing in Dumbfuckistan is a badge of honor.

Personally speaking, if winning means having dumb fucks like Pat Peale, pictured below, vote for me, then I don't want to win.

When your company is losing money and you hire consultants to do a study about how to get back in the black, you expect them to come back with some anwers, not "it's not your fault you're losing money, it's the fact that people don't want your product anymore. Have an nice day."

EDIT: Sometimes, I can't believe the things I read here on DU, the resignation and defeatism.

I see resignation and defeatism in the people who bash the one guy who came within a hair of beating Bush. If we're throwing that guy away, we really are lost.

And I really don't think that us taking on a Jack Welch state of mind will save us either. We're talking about candidates and ideas, not products.

Why would any candidate want to represent fair weather friends?

...oh wait, those were 2004 talking points. Nevermind.

Obviously, no, I don't think he should run.

for neither of them to raise hell about the machines blew them and alot of other names out of the running for me.

CONYERS FOR PREZNIT

election in anything but the most ineffective way......That is a confirmation of the alternate Bush reality.

I was very disappointed in him. It really makes me wonder about all the "Skull and Bones" rumors.....I thought he was a different kind of aristocrat. My bad.